
«H 1m» 













































































































































































































A NARRATIVE 


OF THE 


GUNPOWDER PLOT. 




A 


NARRATIVE 


OF THE 


GUNPOWDER PLOT. 


BY 


DAVID JARDINE, Esq. 

OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW. 


LONDON: 

JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 

1857. 


The right of Translation is reserved. 


J7 ^3fc2 
> 33 7 

I 7co 







7>w4 /t i<Wo 


/ ■ yL^^t 


The substance of the following pages was published 
many years ago in the “ Library of Entertaining Know¬ 
ledge,” and formed the introduction to the trials of 
the several persons implicated in the Gunpowder 
Treason. The obvious objection to the course adopted 
with respect to the “ Criminal Trials,” was, that the 
introduction exceeded its office as an illustration of the 
judicial proceedings, and became a prominent part of 
the work, instead of being merely accessary to the 
main design. Another objection was, that a work, 
which professed some degree of research and a critical 
examination of the evidence and effect of disputed 
facts, was inconsistent with the object of the series to 
which it belonged, and with the character and capaci¬ 
ties of the readers for whose use that series was 
intended. Notwithstanding these objections, reprints 




vi 


PREFACE. 


of the Criminal Trials have been frequent during 
twenty-one years, and the consequence is that the 
stereotype plates, having become completely worn out, 
have been destroyed, and the work is out of print. 
Under these circumstances it is now proposed to arrange 
the materials in the form of a continuous narrative of 
the facts of the Gunpowder Plot, with such enlargements 
and corrections as subsequent inquiry and research have 
suggested. 

Upon the subject of the Gunpowder Plot original 
autnorities and contemporary narrations of facts exist 
in great abundance, although dispersed in various depo¬ 
sitories, both public and private. The source from 
which by far the greater part of the following pages has 
been drawn is the collection of original documents upon 
this subject at the State-Paper Office, arranged and 
indexed some years ago by Mr. Lemon. The extent 
of this collection is a memorial of the diligence with 
which, at the time, the facts of the conspiracy were 
investigated. For nearly six months the examina¬ 
tion of the numerous prisoners and witnesses occupied 
the attention of the Commissioners appointed to that 
service by the King, during which time their 
labours were aided by Chief Justice Popham, Sir 
Edward Coke, Sir Francis Bacon, and several others of 
the most acute and experienced lawyers of the day. 
More than five hundred depositions and examinations 


PREFACE. 


Vll 


were taken, a large proportion of which, together with 
numerous contemporary letters and papers relating to 
the transaction, are still to be found at the State-Paper 
Office. 

Although it is quite clear from the existence of this 
mass of documents that the Privy Council of James I. 
were fully acquainted with all the details of the con¬ 
spiracy, it was not to be expected that a fair or full 
statement should be officially published. The object of 
the government was to turn the transaction to the best 
political account, and nothing could be further from 
their intention than to publish truth merely for the 
information of the people. The practice of those days 
was to hold the people in leading-strings on political 
subjects, and so much light only was given respecting 
occurrences of state as the Privy Council thought con¬ 
venient and useful for the attainment of their obiects. 

* ■ 

Where the whole truth would not produce the intended 
effect, a part only was published; and where the part 
would not exactly suit the purpose, no scruple was 
made of garbling and altering it. And this practice 
was well illustrated in the official account of the Gun¬ 
powder Plot published immediately after its occurrence. 
Before the trials of the conspirators, an anonymous 
narrative, entitled “ A Discourse of the manner of the 
Discovery of the Gunpowder Plot,” was printed by the 
King’s printer, and published by authority of the 


vm 


PREFACE. 


Government. This publication, which was industri¬ 
ously ascribed to the pen of the King, and was called 
the “ King’s Book,” was not only dispersed profusely in 
England, but was sent, together with the King’s speech 
on opening the Parliament, to the ambassadors at foreign 
courts, translated into several languages, and circulated 
with the utmost diligence in every part of Europe. A 
careful comparison of this relation with Bacon’s ac¬ 
knowledged narratives of the Treasons of Lopez - and of 
the Earl of Essex, in Queen Elizabeth's time, produces 
a strong impression that all of them were composed by 
the same hand. The resemblance is not confined to 
the similarity of the style and language; the whole 
scheme of the “ Discourse” is the same as that of the 
“ Declaration of the Earl of Essex’s Treasons,” viz., to 
surround fictions by undoubted truths with such 
apparent simplicity and carelessness, but in fact with 
such consummate art and depth of design, that the 
reader is beguiled into an unsuspecting belief of the 
whole narration. The fidelity of the story is in both 
cases vouched by the introduction of depositions and 
documents which give an air of candour and authority, 
but which might be garbled at the discretion of the 
writer, without fear of detection, as the originals were 
in the power of those who employed him. At all 
events, whether this conjecture be well or ill founded, 
and whether the ‘ ‘ Discourse of the manner of the 


PREFACE. 


is 


Discovery of the Gunpowder Plot” was written by 
Bacon or by some other courtier, or by the King him¬ 
self, there is no doubt that it is a narrative of no 
historical authority; it is merely the Court version of 
the transaction, given to the world for the express 
purpose of leading the public mind in a particular 
direction. Of several hundreds of examinations which 
had been taken, two only were published in this narra¬ 
tive, namely, a Declaration of Guy Fawkes, and a 
Confession of Thomas Winter. That both of these 
were carefully settled and prepared for the purpose of 
publication is not only highly probable from a compari¬ 
son of them with the other statements of the same 
individuals, which are still extant; but is demonstrated 
as a fact by the interlineations and alterations observ¬ 
able upon the originals. 

Besides those documents which have remained in the 
State-Paper Office, as their proper place of custody, 
ever since the time of the first Earl of Salisbury, many 
papers appear to have been added at a later period. 
When Sir Edward Coke was discharged by James I. 
from his judicial station in 1618 , his papers were seized 
by order of the Privy Council, and deposited in the 
State-Paper Office; and it appears from an inventory 
of the articles so deposited, in the hand-writing of Sir 
Thomas Wilson, who shortly afterwards became Keeper 
of the State papers, that, among many other documents 



X 


PREFACE. 


of a public and private nature, there was “a black 
buckram bag containing papers about the Powder Plot. 
As many of the most valuable documents in the collec¬ 
tion, consist of Sir Edward Coke’s original Notes, or 
copies of depositions bearing either his indorsement or 
some quaint remark or quotation in his hand-writing, 
it is probable they formed a part of the contents of that 
“ buckram bag.” 

Although partial extracts from the documents in the 
State-Paper Office relating to the Gunpowder Plot have 
been published in the course of the numerous contro¬ 
versies which have taken place respecting this transac¬ 
tion, they have never been carefully digested and laid 
before the public in the form of a connected narrative. 
It appears from some papers among the Tanner Manu¬ 
scripts in the Bodleian Library that a work of this kind 
was at one time contemplated by Archbishop Sancroft. 
The circumstance is not mentioned by any of his 
biographers, and it is unknown at what period of his 
life he commenced the undertaking; though it may be 
conjectured that his attention was directed to the 
subject by the discussions between the Roman Catholics 
and Protestants at the time of the Popish Plot. At all 
events, he did not proceed further than a partial collec¬ 
tion of materials, and it is quite uncertain whether he 
intended to write a controversial or a purely historical 
work. Several documents, the originals of which are 


PREFACE. 


xi 


probably not in existence, have been referred to in this 
volume tlirough the medium of the copies in Sancroft’s 
hand-writing. 

Although the documents upon the subject of the 
Gunpowder Plot preserved at the State-Paper Office 
are numerous, the collection is not by any means com¬ 
plete. Many important papers, which were particu¬ 
larly mentioned and described by Bishop Andrews, 
Dr. Abbott, Casaubon and other contemporary writers, 
and some of which were copied by Archbishop San- 
croft from the originals so lately as the close of the 17 th 
century, are not now to be found. It is remarkable, 
that precisely those papers which constitute the most 
important evidence against Garnet and the other 
Jesuits are missing; so that if the merits of the con¬ 
troversy respecting their criminal implication in the 
Plot depended upon-the fair effect of the original docu¬ 
ments now to be found in the State-Paper Office, 
impartial readers might probably hesitate to form a 
decided opinion upon the subject. The missing papers 
of particular importance are the minutes of an overheard 
conversation between Garnet and Hall in the Tower, 
dated the 25th February, 1605—6, an intercepted 
letter from Garnet addressed to 4 4 the Fathers and 
Brethren of the Society of Jesus,” dated on Palm 
Sunday, a few days after his trial, and an intercepted 
letter to Greenway, dated April 4, 1605—6. That all 


Xll 


PREFACE. 


of these papers were in the State-Paper Office when 
Dr. Abbott wrote his Antilogia in 1613, is evident 
from the copious extracts from them published in that 
work; and a literal copy of the first of them, made by 
Archbishop Sancroft many years afterwards from the 
State Papers, is still in existence. The originals of 
these documents, however, do not appear to be now 
contained in the proper depository for them; and it is 
undoubtedly a singular accident that, amongst so large 
a mass of documents, precisely those should be abstracted 
upon whose authenticity and effect the point in the 
controversy between the Koman Catholics and the Pro¬ 
testants in great measure depended. 

Many of the facts in the following narrative are 
taken from a manuscript relation of Father Green way, 
brought by Dr. Lingard from Pome, and much relied 
upon by him in the interesting account of this conspi- 
racy given in his History of England. Greenway’s 
Narrative consists of a copious relation of all the details 
of the Plot, from its commencement until the execution 
of Garnet. It is in the Italian language, but is evi¬ 
dently a translation from the original English. Though 
little is known of the history of this manuscript, there 
is strong internal evidence that it was written by 
Greenway, probably at the suggestion of the Pope or of 
the Father-General of the Jesuits, in order to vindicate 

l 

his own conduct and that of Garnet from the charge of 


PREFACE. 


xm 


having encouraged the Plot. His description of the 
persons, characters, and family connexions of the prin¬ 
cipal conspirators, with most of whom he was familiarly 
acquainted; his account of their general conduct — 
their superstitious fears—their dreams—“ their thick- 
coming fancies ”—in the progress of the work of de¬ 
struction, are extremely interesting. His speculations, 
too, respecting the letter to Lord Mounteagle and the 
treachery of Tresham, are well worthy of attention as 
containing most probably the opinions of the conspirators 
themselves. Nor is there any reason in matters of this 
kind to doubt his veracity. Some allowance must be 
made however for the partial colours in which he depicts 
the characters of the conspirators. That they were not 
coarse and brutal ruffians, as described in the popular 
representations of them, is beyond all doubt; but 
according to Greenway’s statement, the men who con¬ 
trived this monstrous and cruel treason were the 
gentlest, the most benevolent, and the most pious of the 
human race; and if we are to believe him, “ the seven 
gentlemen of name and blood,” as Fawkes truly calls 
them, who worked in the mine, together with those who 
afterwards joined them, composed as amiable a company, 
with respect to virtues and accomplishments, as could 
have been desired. So also in the relation of facts which 
bear upon the main object of his work, namely, the ex¬ 
culpation of Father Garnet and himself from the heavy 


XIV 


PREFACE. 


imputation cast upon them, his Narrative is entitled to 
no credit whatever; his statements in this part of his 
story, to which he sometimes adds the most solemn 
asseverations of their truth, being often directly contra¬ 
dicted by the express and repeated admissions of 
Garnet and the principal confederates. Whatever 
doubts may be entertained respecting Garnet, it is clear 
from the statements of several of the conspirators, and 
from the admissions of Garnet himself, that Greenway 
was a full accomplice in the Plot. He was not only 
privy to the design from its first formation, but was a 
zealous and active confederate, approving, promoting, 
and encouraging it with the utmost enthusiasm. The 
statements of such a person, writing probably at the 
command of his superiors, for the express purpose of 
justifying himself and the other English Jesuits, must 
of course be received with caution in all particulars re¬ 
lating to their connexion with the plot. Collaterally, 
however, Greenway’s narrative seems to show that the 
Gunpowder Plot was neither encouraged nor approved 
at Rome; for when he is called upon by his religious 
superiors to vindicate himself from the charge imposed 
upon him at the trials of the conspirators, he does not 
venture to admit his share in the transaction, but 
writes a laboured exculpation of himself, and condemns 
the Plot in unequivocal terms, calling it a “rash, 
desperate, and wicked” conspiracy, and ascribing its 


PREFACE. 


xv 


prevention to a special interposition of Providence. He 
succeeded in deceiving those in authority at Rome by 
his hypocrisy and falsehood; for he was afterwards 
appointed Penitentiary to the Pope, and is said to have 
enjoyed during the remainder of his life the full favour 
and confidence of Paul Y. 

Much information respecting the family connexions 
of the conspirators, and the domestic history of the 
Catholics shortly before the period of the Gunpowder 
Plot, has been derived from a mass of papers, discovered 
a few years ago in a singular manner at Rushton, in 
Northamptonshire. In the early part of the year 1828, 
on the removal of a lintel over an ancient doorway in 
the old mansion of the Treshams at Rushton, a hand¬ 
somely-bound breviary fell out among the workmen. 
On further search, an opening was discovered in a thick 
stone wall, of about five feet long and fourteen or 
fifteen inches wide, almost filled with bundles of manu¬ 
scripts, and containing about twenty religious books in 
excellent preservation. The contents of the manu¬ 
scripts were various; consisting of historical notes by 
Sir Thomas Tresham, rolled up with building bills, 
deeds, and farming contracts, of no general interest or 
importance, and also of a portion of the domestic corre¬ 
spondence of the Tresham family between the years 
1590 and 1605. The paper of the latest date is a 
memorandum, without a signature, of certain bonds, 


XVI 


PREFACE 


therein stated to have been delivered up to Mrs. 
Tresham on the 28th of November, 1605, by the 
vriter of the memorandum. In all probability, there¬ 
fore, this was the period when these books and papers 
were finally enclosed. Sir Thomas Tresham died in 
September, 1605, and his estates upon that event de¬ 
scended to Francis Tresham, Ins eldest son, who was a 
conspirator in the Gunpowder Plot. Upon his appre¬ 
hension, which took place on the 12 th of November, 
it is natural to suppose that his papers at Rushton 
would be destroyed or concealed by his friends. From 
the almost total absence of letters of a political tendency 
amongst the papers thus discovered, it is probable that 
all such were destroyed. Although there is nothing 
among these papers specifically relating to the Gunpowder 
Plot, they contain valuable information upon the condi¬ 
tion and domestic history of the Roman Catholics at 
that period, their expectations from James I., and their 
grievous disappointment on his accession; and at any 
rate they throw light upon the causes which led to the 
conspiracy. 


NARRATIVE 


OP 

THE GUNPOWDER P L 0 T. 


CHAPTER I. 

Interest and historical importance of the occurrence—Its political 
consequences—Party misrepresentation of the facts—State of the 
English Roman Catholics at the commencement of the reign of 
James I.— Penal laws against recusants—Instances of the op¬ 
pressive enforcement of these laws—Sir Thomas Tresham— 
Thomas Throckmorton—Edward Rook wood—Condition of the 
Roman Catholic clergy—Hopes of the Roman Catholics from 
James I.—Encouraged by the King both before and after his 
accession—His relaxation of the penal laws—Sudden change of 
policy in this respect—The penal laws of Elizabeth again enforced 
—New restrictive laws proposed — Indignation of the Roman 
Catholics — Their negotiations with the King of Spain. 

The conspiracy termed the Gunpowder Plot must for 
various reasons be considered as one of the most re¬ 
markable occurrences in English history. The atrocity 
of the design, the extent of the mischief intended, and 
the mysterious manner in which the scheme is repre¬ 
sented to have been detected upon the eve of its 

B 


Interest and 
historical im¬ 
portance of 
the occur¬ 
rence. 


2 POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLOT. 

execution, would alone be sufficient to give a sur¬ 
passing interest to the story ; while the popular observ¬ 
ance of the anniversary periodically awakens the 
remembrance of Guy Fawkes and his associates, and 
perpetuates the memory of the transaction by rendering 
its leading features familiar even to our children. 

But the subject of' the Gunpowder Plot well deserves 
the serious consideration of those who read history 
with higher objects than mere entertainment. The 
political consequences of this transaction were impor¬ 
tant and permanent. It fixed the timid and wavering 
mind of the King in his adherence to the Protestant 
party, in opposition to the Roman Catholics; and the 
universal horror, which was naturally excited not only 
in England but throughout Europe by so barbarous an 
attempt, was artfully converted into an engine for the 
suppression of the Roman Catholic Church ; so that the 
ministers of James I., having procured the reluctant 
acquiescence of the King, and the cordial assent of 
public opinion, were enabled to continue in full force 
the severe laws previously passed against Papists, and 
to enact others of no less rigour and injustice. Even 
after the lapse of more than two centuries, the excite¬ 
ment of the public mind on this subject, stimulated as 
it has been from time to time by the occurrence of 
other plots real and pretended, has not wholly subsided ; 
and in our own times, during the frequent discussions 
respecting the propriety of relieving Roman Catholics 
from civil disabilities, the Gunpowder Plot was re¬ 
peatedly referred to as a practical proof that the 


PARTY MISREPRESENTATION. 


3 


doctrines of the Roman Catholic religion were incon¬ 
sistent with the safety of a Protestant Government. 
The soundness of this argument, when applied to the 
altered state of things in the nineteenth century, has 
been often controverted; but it loses every shadow of 
validity if the conspiracy was not justly chargeable 
upon the general body of the English Roman Catholics, 
and was not in fact encouraged or approved by them, 
either before or after its discovery. This is a question 
of fact eminently deserving of critical investigation ; but 
until lately the circumstances of the transaction have 
been so much perverted by the rancorous party spirit 
displayed by writers on both sides, that the question has 
hitherto never undergone a dispassionate examination. 
In these days of toleration, when a liberal and enlight¬ 
ened policy has caused the repeal of all persecuting 
laws against Roman Catholics, and the question of 
emancipation is no longer the watchword of political 
party, this obstacle to the discovery of truth has been 
removed, and writers of either form of religion can 
now direct their historical reasoning and researches to 
better objects than mere sectarian accusation and re¬ 
crimination. 

This comparative freedom from party prejudice is, 
however, of very recent date. In consequence of the 
political jealousy between Roman Catholics and Protes¬ 
tants which has prevailed in this country ever since 
the Reformation, almost every point of English history 
supposed to have the remotest bearing upon the re¬ 
spective merits of the two systems of religion has been 

B 2 


STATE OF ROMAN CATHOLICS. 


State of 

English 

tholics. 


A 
rr 

obscured and misrepresented. This has been par¬ 
ticularly the case with the Gunpowder Treason. The 
outlines of the transaction were indeed too notorious to 
be suppressed or disguised. That a design had been 

formed to blow up the Parliament House, with the 
» ■ 

King, the Royal Family, the Lords and Commons, and 
that this design was formed by Roman Catholic men 
and for Roman Catholic purposes, could never admit of 
controversy or concealment; but the details of the 
conspiracy,—the causes which led to it,—the motives 
and objects of the conspirators,—the extent to which 
the knowledge of it prevailed amongst Papists in 
England and abroad, and the degree of encouragement 
it received from the Roman Catholic clergy, have been, 
ever since the date of its occurrence to the present 
time, subjects of doubt and dispute. 

In order to form a fair judgment of the causes which 
produced the Gunpowder Treason, and of the motives 
of those who were engaged in it, it is necessary to 
consider generally the state of the English Roman 
Catholics at that precise period, and to take a summary 
view of the penal restrictions and liabilities to which, 
at the commencement of the reign of James I., the 
adherents to the Church of Rome were subject, 
the The laws passed against recusants in the latter 
years of the reign of Elizabeth were extremely severe ; 
and whatever opinion may be entertained respecting 
the object with which they were passed, or their 
necessity for the protection of the Protestant establish¬ 
ment from the practices of disaffected and turbulent 


PENAL LAWS AGAINST THEM. 5 

fanatics, at that time excited and encouraged by the 
mischievous interference of the Pope, it is obvious 
that their effect was to withdraw from a large pro¬ 
portion—probably a majority—of the inhabitants of 
England the common rights and liberties of English¬ 
men, and to place all persons, who adhered from 
conscience and principle to the ancient religion, 
though loyal to the existing Government, in a state of' 
unmerited persecution and suffering. By these laws, 
Roman Catholics were not only forbidden to use the 
rites and ceremonies of their own faith, but were 
required to attend upon the services of a Church which, 
if conscientious and consistent, they were bound to 
abhor as heretical and damnable. If they refused or 
forbore to come to a- Protestant church on the sabbath, 
they were liable to a penalty of 201, for every lunar 
month during which they absented themselves.* The 
public exercise of the social rites of their own Church 
was virtually interdicted, for it was enacted j* “that 
every priest saying mass was punishable by a forfeiture 
of two hundred marks, and every person hearing it, by 
a forfeiture of one hundred marks, and both were to be 
imprisoned a year, and the priest until his fine was 
paid.” The ministers of their religion, without whose 
presence they were precluded from the exercise of the 
sacraments and other rites, were in effect proscribed 
and banished; for by a statute passed in 1585 (27 
Eliz. c. 2), it was enacted “ that all Jesuits, seminary 
and other priests ordained since the beginning of the 
'* 23 Eliz., c. 1, s. 5. f 23 Eliz., c. 1, s. 4. 


6 POWER OF THE CROWN OVER ROMAN CATHOLICS. 

Queen’s reign, should depart out of the realm within 
forty days after the end of that session of Parliament; 
and that all such priests or other religious persons 
ordained since the said time should not come into 
England, or remain there, under the pain of suffering 
death as in case of treason.” It was also enacted by 
the same statute, “ that all persons receiving or assist¬ 
ing such priests should be guilty of a capital felony.” 
When a person professing the Popish religion was 
convicted in a court of law of absenting himself from 
the established church, he was termed a “ Popish 
recusant convictsuch a person was liable by the 
35 Eliz. c. 1, to be committed to prison without bail 
until he conformed and made submission; and if he did 
not within three months after conviction submit and 
repair to the established church, he must abjure the 
realm* and if he refused to swear, or did not depart 
upon his abjuration, or if he returned without licence, 
he was guilty of felony, and might suffer death as a 
felon, without benefit of clergy. 

No doubt these rigorous laws were not at all times 
enforced to their utmost extent; but they placed the 

* Abjuration of the realm for felony at the common law was 
the taking of an oath, with many religious solemnities, to depart 
from England for ever, and not to return without the King’s license. 
The party after taking the oath was bound to repair immediately, 
with the cross in his hand, to some seaport, and at once to embark. 
If he delayed, or returned without license, he was hanged sine 
strepitu judicii, unless he claimed the benefit of clergy. The punish¬ 
ment of abjuration imposed by the statute of Elizabeth upon 
Catholics was far more severe than abjuration for felony at common 
law; in the latter case the felon had the benefit of clergy, in the 
former it was expressly taken away. 


LAWS AGAINST RECUSANTS OPPRESSIVELY APPLIED. 7 

whole body of the Roman Catholics at the mercy 
of the Protestant Government, who were enabled to 
crush or spare them at their discretion or caprice. For 
them there was no liberty, personal or religious, 
but such as the Privy Council thought proper to allow; 
and with reference to their religion, the law gave 
them no rights and afforded them no protection. The 
fact that large amounts were paid into the Exchequer 
for recusants’ fines during the latter years of Elizabeth’s 
reign is well known ; but the oppressive use which was 
made of these laws in enforcing contributions to assist 
the revenue of the Crown on particular emergencies 
has not been noticed by historians. Thus, when in 1600 
it was necessary to raise regiments of cavalry for the 
war in Ireland, letters were sent to wealthy recusants 
throughout England, reminding them of the advantage 
they derived from the Queen’s clemency in not 
enforcing against them the penalties for recusancy 
imposed by the various statutes above mentioned, and 
advising them to contribute for the Queen’s use by or 
before a certain day the sums set severally against 
their names. If the sums were not paid by the day 
specified, other letters issued, threatening, in clear 
terms, that compulsory means would be found in the 
enforcement of the statutory penalties unless the 
payments were made without further delay. # When 

* Several letters of this kind will be foimd in the Council Registers 
for 1600 ; and among those to whom they are directed are Thomas 
Abington of Hendlip, who was arraigned and convicted as an 
accessary to the Gunpowder Treason, and Lady Catesby, the mother 
of Robert Catesby the arch-conspirator. 


8 


INSTANCES OF ENFORCING LAWS 


we remember that the victims of the laws above enume¬ 
rated considered themselves to be the majority of the 
gross population of the country; that the chief suffer¬ 
ers were the principal nobility and gentry of the land, 
whose ancestors had served the kings of England before 
the Reformation in the highest offices of state, and 
whose honours and possessions were the proofs of 
royal favour and distinction conferred on their pre¬ 
decessors ; when we consider, moreover, that these 
persons were thus impoverished and disgraced for their 
adherence to that ancient religion to whose rites and 
ceremonies they were attached by early and hereditary 
associations, and whose power and influence they were 
bound by the strongest obligations to maintain and de¬ 
fend against what was to them an abominable heresy, 
we shall be at no loss to comprehend the bitter feelings 
of discontent which prevailed amongst the English 
Roman Catholics under Elizabeth, and which produced 
a constant succession of plots and rebellions more or 
less important and alarming during the last twenty 
years of her reign. 

Although it must be admitted that the laws in 
existence against recusants at this period were not 
constantly enforced against them, it must not, on the 
other hand, be supposed that they were merely sus¬ 
pended, in terrorem , over the heads of those against 
whom they were directed, for the purpose of restrain¬ 
ing the seditious attempts of the disaffected. There 
is no doubt that they were often practically applied 
with great severity; and there were few Roman 


AGAINST RECUSANTS. 


9 




Catholic families who had not in some degree ex¬ 
perienced their rigour. Of this many instances might 
be adduced. The family history of some of the prin¬ 
cipal actors in the Gunpowder Plot, exhibits in 
a strong point of view the temper of the times, and 
the actual condition of the Roman Catholic gentry. 

Sir Thomas Tresham, the father of Francis Tresham, sir Thomas 
one of the most conspicuous characters in the Gun¬ 
powder Treason, belonged to a family who from very 
early times had possessed a princely estate in North¬ 
amptonshire. On the restoration of the Knights 
Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem, by Queen Mary, 
his grandfather had been made Lord Prior of that 
order. Sir Thomas Tresham himself was originally a 
Protestant, and was knighted by Elizabeth, at Kenil¬ 
worth, in 1577 : three years afterwards, when the first 
missionary priests came into England, he was converted 
by Campion and Parsons and reconciled to the Church 
of Rome.* From the time of his conversion until his 
death, in 1605, he was constantly the subject of prose¬ 
cution. Shortly after Campion’s apprehension, in 1580, 
he was arrested and sent to the Fleet on suspicion ol 
having harboured the missionaries: on his refusal to 
swear before the Council that Campion had not been at 
his house he was prosecuted in the Star-Chamber, 
together with Lord Vaux, Sir William Catesby, the 
father of Robert Catesby the conspirator in the Gun¬ 
powder Plot, and several other Roman Catholics, and 
sentenced by the Court to pay a very heavy fine, and 

* More’s Historia Societatis Jesu, p. 74. 

3 3 


to INSTANCES OF ENFORCING LAWS 

to be imprisoned in the Fleet until he swore as required 
by the Council. Under this sentence Sir Thomas 
Tresham languished in close imprisonment for several 
years. He was afterwards repeatedly imprisoned on 
the ground of his religion, in the Fleet and at Banbury 
Castle, for long periods of time, and also at Ely, which 
he terms, in some of his letters, his 4 ‘familiar prison.”* 
He was discharged from his imprisonment at Ely on 
the 3rd of December, 1597, having been required 
to find security for his appearance, if called upon, 
and for his good behaviour.f It appears also 
from the receipts at the Exchequer, that for more 
than twenty years he constantly paid 260 l. per annum 
into the Treasury, being the statutory penalty of 20 1. 
per lunar month for recusancy. { In a letter of his, 
dated the 7th of October, 1604, he says that “he had 
undergone full twenty-four years' term of. restless 
adversity and deep disgrace, only for testimony of his 
conscience.” The resolute devotion of the old man to 
his religion appears from a letter to Lord Henry 
Howard, in July 1603, in which he says, that “ he 
has now completed his triple apprenticeship of one and 
twenty years in direst’ adversity, and that he should be 
content to serve a like long apprenticeship to prevent 
the foregoing of his beloved, beautiful, and graceful 
Rachel; for it seemed to him but a few days for the 
love he had to her,”§ 

A second instance is that of Mr. Thomas Throck- 

* Rush ton Papers. f Council Register. 

X Lansdowne MSS. No. 153, p. 125. § Rusliton Papers. 


AGAINST RECUSANTS. 


11 


morton, of Coughton, head of the ancient family of Mr ; Thomas 
that name, and nephew of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, ton. 
who was ambassador to France in the early part of 
Elizabeth’s reign. Mr. Throckmorton’s life was one 
continued series of persecution on account of his 
religion. His estate was constantly under sequestra¬ 
tion for the fines and penalties imposed upon him for 
recusancy. Among other instances, Strype mentions 
that he was fined 1000 marks in 1587 and 140Z. in 
1594A He was arrested with Sir William Catesby in 
1580, upon the seizure of Campion the Jesuit.t At 
the period of the threatened invasion from Spain in 
1587, he was imprisoned at Fulham and Ely for a long 
space of time, and in 1597 we find him a prisoner in 
Banbury Castle. He was connected by blood with 
several of the Gunpowder conspirators, Catesby and 
Tresham being his nephews, and the Winters of Hud- 
dington being nearly allied to him. 

A third instance is the case of Edward Rookwood, of Edward 

Rookwood. 

Euston Hall, in Suffolk, a cousin of Ambrose Rook¬ 
wood, the conspirator. In 1578 Elizabeth, on one of 
her progresses, had been sumptuously entertained by 
this gentleman, at Euston Hall.j; Ten years afterwards 
he was imprisoned at Ely, with other Roman Catholic 
gentlemen. The payment of recusancy fines reduced 
him eventually to absolute want. He was discharged 
from his imprisonment at Ely on the 3rd of December, 

* Strvpe’s Annals, vol. iii. part 2, p. 705; vol. iv. p. 276. 

f More’s Historia Societatis Jesu, p. 82. 

X Lodge’s Illustrations, vol. ii. p. 188. 


12 


ENFORCEMENT OF PENAL LAWS 


1597 and in the parish register of St. James, 
at Bury St. Edmunds, is this entry of his burial: 
“ Mr. Rookwood, from the jail, buried June 4th, 
1598.”f His estate was afterwards sold to relieve his 
family. 

thTcathoiif These instances, taken from a great number of cases 
of a similar kind, exhibit the situation of the laity. 
The condition of the clergy, who were the principal 
objects of the penal enactments, was far worse. The 
Jesuit missionaries in particular lived in a state of 
perpetual concealment and terror. In many of the 
principal Roman Catholic houses subterranean vaults, 
chambers built in the substance of the walls and in 
the chimneys, with curious contrivances for the admis¬ 
sion of air and food, were provided, into which the 
priests retired in case of a hostile search for them 
they went abroad disguised, and, avoiding towns and 
places of miscellaneous resort, wandered b}^ unfre¬ 
quented roads from one house of refuge to another, 
using a different name at each, that they might not be 
traced. Sometimes they hid themselves for months 
together in woods and caverns; and Mr. Butler 
mentions “ a tangled dell in the neighbourhood of 

* Council Register. 

f Gage’s Antiquities of Hengrave, p. 2-18. 

X Nicholas Owen, also called Little John, from his diminutive 
statiu’e, who was an attendant on Father Garnet, and committed 
suicide in the Tower after the apprehension of his master, is stated 
by Jesuit writers to have had a singular dexterity in inventing 
hiding-places for priests. He is said to have constructed the con¬ 
cealed cells in Hendlip House, in Worcestershire, in one of which 
Garnet and Hall were discovered.—See Tanner’s History of the 
Society of Jesus, p. 72. 


AGAINST THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CLERGY. 13 

Stonor Park, near Henley-on-Thames, which tradi¬ 
tion points out as the place in which Campion, the 
Jesuit, wrote his ‘ Decern Kationes,’ and to which 
books and food were carried by stealth.”* The con¬ 
stant liability to inquisitorial searches for priests was a 
heavy domestic grievance to the oppressed party. The 
mansion in which a priest was suspected to be har¬ 
boured was often surrounded in the dead of the night 
by a party of armed men, demanding admittance with 
shouts and clamour. Every corner of the house was 
diligently searched. Even the bed-rooms of the females 
were not spared. The empty beds were carefully exa¬ 
mined, and felt with the hand to ascertain whether 
their warmth did not betray their recent occupation. 
The walls and partitions were struck with mallets to 
find out hollow places; and drawn rapiers were thrust 
into the chinks of the wainscots. The terror occa¬ 
sioned by these nocturnal visitations is not to be de¬ 
scribed. Father Green way mentions that a Mrs. 
Vavasour, a lady in Yorkshire, was so terrified by a 
sudden alarm of this kind at midnight that she became 
hopelessly deranged in her intellect.-}- For the per¬ 
formance of mass, and other social rites of the Koman 
Catholic religion, various contrivances were adopted. 
The more wealthy fitted up a part of their houses as 
chapels :J the plan generally adopted by the Jesuits in 

* Butler’s Memoirs of the English Catholics, vol. iii. p. 193. 

f Parsons’s Judgment of a Catholic Englishman, 8vo., 1608. 
Greenway’s MS. 

X The biographer of Lady Montacute describes with rapture a 
chapel built by her in her house at Battle Abbey in Sussex, in 


14 HOPES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS FROM JAMES I. 


Expectation 
of the Roman 
Catholics 
from 
James I. 


the neighbourhood of London, was to take two or three 
large houses, to which alternately the priests and com¬ 
municants resorted at stated periods understood among 
themselves, for the purpose of renewing their vows to 
their superiors, and also for religious worship. Thus, 
at the time of the Gunpowder Plot, it appeared that 
they had taken the manor-house at Erith on the 
Thames, and a large house called White Webbs, on the 
borders of Enfield Chase, to be used by them for 
religious purposes. During the performance of divine 
service, one of the family, or a confidential servant, was 
always employed to watch the approaches to the house, 
in order that the priests might have timely notice of 
any intended surprise, and save themselves by flight, 
or by retiring into some of the hiding-places provided 
for them. 

Such was the state of insecurity and alarm in which 
the English Catholics were placed during great part 
of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. As her life declined, 
it was natural that a party so oppressed should direct 


which she had placed “ a fair marble altar with steps of ascent to 
it, and chancels all round it: that nothing might he wanting, 
she also raised a choir for singing-men, and made a pulpit (sug- 
gesturn ) for the priests (a thing which is perhaps not to be found 
in all the rest of England). Here public service was performed 
almost every week, and the communion in all its solemn rites was 
celebrated with singing and musical instruments, and sometimes 
even with the assistance of a dean and sub-dean. And such was 
the concourse of Catholics on these occasions, that oftentimes a 
hundred and twenty persons were present, and sixty persons together 
received the holy sacrament.”—Smith’s Life of Lady Montacute, 
chap. xi. 




PROMISES MADE BY HIM IN THEIR FAVOUR. 


15 


their attention with much anxiety to her probable 
successor. Having abandoned all expectation of an 
avowed Roman Catholic heir to the crown, they were 
led by many circumstances to look forward with hope 
to the succession of James. They remembered that he 
was born of Romish parents, and that he had been bap¬ 
tized by a Romish archbishop. They relied upon the 
feelings of dislike with which they supposed that he 
must regard the party who had caused the execution of 
his mother. They knew that several of the ordinances 
of the Roman Church were approved by him, and they 
had heard and believed that he had, on more than one 
occasion, expressed a willingness to be reconciled to the 
apostolic see.* Besides these general presumptions of a 
disposition favourable to their party, the leading Roman 
Catholics were attached to the cause of James, by the 
express assurances of a toleration for their religion, 
which were reported to them from various quarters, 
and in particular by individuals despatched to Edin¬ 
burgh for the purpose of ascertaining his intentions upon 
that subject. Thomas Percy, one of the conspirators in 
the Gunpowder Plot, had been sent on a mission of this 


* See Birch’s Negotiations, p. 177. In a conversation with 
Monsieur de Beaumont, the French ambassador, soon after his 
arrival in London, Janies told him, “ Qu’il n’etoit point lieretique, 
c’est a dire refusant a reconnoistre la verite; qu’il n’etoit non plus 
puritain, ni moins separe d’Eglise; qu'il y estimait la hierarcliie 
necessaire; par consequent qu’il avoueroit toujours le Pape pour le 
premier Eveque, en icelle President et Moderateur au Concile, mais 
non chef ni superieur.”—De Beaumont to Henri IV., 23 July 1603. 
See Depeches de Mons. de Beaumont, in the MSS. of the King’s 
Library in the British Museum. 


16 ROMAN CATHOLICS FAVOURABLE 

kind; and the Earl of Northumberland states, as the 
result of that mission, that “ when Percy came out of 
Scotland from the King (his Lordship having written 
to the King, where his advice was to give good hopes 
to the Catholics, that he might the more easily without 
impediment come to the crown), he said that the King’s 
pleasure was, that his Lordship should give the 
Catholics hopes that they should be well dealt withal, 
or to that effect.”* James afterwards strenuously 
denied that he had ever authorized Percy to convey 
such a message to the Earl of Northumberland, or had 
ever given encouragement to the Roman Catholics to 
expect from him a relaxation of the penal laws passed 
against them; but the simple denial of James on a 
point of this kind is not entitled to much credit. On 
the other hand, it was natural and probable that he 
should be desirous to secure the favour of so important 
a body, as the Roman Catholics then were, by such pro¬ 
mises and concessions. That he actually made them is 
proved, not only by the above assertion of the Earl of" 
Northumberland, but by a letter of Mons. de Beaumont, 
the French ambassador, to Henry IV., dated the 28th 
March, 1603, when Queen Elizabeth was dying, in 
which he declares that he had been confidentially 
informed by the Earl of Northumberland that James 
had written to him with his own hand, that the Roman 
Catholic religion should be tolerated.! 

% 

* Examination of the Earl of Northumberland, 23 November, 
1605.—'State-Paper Office. 

t Depeches de Beaumont. 


TO JAMES’S SUCCESSION. 


17 


At all events, whether the encouragement to such 
hopes was actually given by the King or not, there is 
no doubt of the fact that the English Roman Catholics 
entertained a confident expectation that upon James’s 
accession some considerable mitigation of the penal laws 
from which they had so long suffered, would be 
effected; and that they should in future be allowed the 
exercise of their religion, if not with perfect freedom, 
at least under such reasonable and moderate restrictions 
as 'would render their condition much more tolerable 
than it had been during the preceding reign. This 
persuasion, and the advice of De Beaumont, the French 
ambassador, induced the nobility and gentry to become 
warm partisans of James’s title; and though upon the 
death of Elizabeth, the Protestants in various parts of 
the country hesitated, the Roman Catholics, at that 
critical moment, in general adopted active measures to 
secure his succession to the throne.* Thus Sir Thomas 
Tresham, with considerable personal danger, and against 
much resistance on the part of the local magistrates and 
the populace, immediately proclaimed him at North¬ 
ampton ; while his two sons, Francis and Lewis, with 
his son-in-law, the Lord Mounteagle, supported the 
Earl of Southampton in holding the Tower of London 
for his use.f 

* Depeches de Beaumont, 8 April, 1603. 

f Petition Apologetical of the Lay Catholics of England. Rushton 
Papers. The persuasion of the King’s inclination to the Roman 
Catholic religion prevailed also at Rome. The favourable disposi¬ 
tion of the Pope towards James appears from a letter written by 
Robert Ellyot, an English Roman Catholic at Rome, to M. de Lylle 


18 


RELAXATION OF PENAL LAWS BY JAMES. 


For some time after his accession, the hopes of the 
Roman Catholics continued to receive encouragement 
from the conduct of the King towards them. James 
arrived at London at the beginning of April, 1603 ; in 
July immediately following, many recusants of quality 
and distinction, and amongst them Sir Thomas Tresham, 
were sent for from various parts of the country to 
Hampton Court by order of the King, and were assured 
by the Lords of the Privy Council, with expressions of 
courtesy and respect, that “ it was his Majesty’s inten¬ 
tion to exonerate the English Catholics from the 
pecuniary fine of 201. a month for recusancy imposed 
by the statute of Elizabeth and that “ they should 
enjoy this grace and favour so long as they kept them- 

at Paris, immediately after the receipt of the tidings of Elizabeth’s 
death. “ His Holiness,” says this writer, “ and Cardinal Aldobrandino 
hath a great care of his Majesty’s prosperous success, and meaneth 
to proceed to avoid all occasions that may breed the least suspicion 
of impediment to his Majesty’s quiet establishment, and to invite 
him by good offices to have consideration of us Catholics, and unite 
himself with the body of Christendom, thereby to content the world 
and to establish himself in peace and tranquillity. His Holiness hath 
made a litany, wherein is included all the saints of England and 
Scotland, which is to be sung for fifteen days in the churches of Rome 
for the conversion of the king and his kingdoms; and this being 
ended, a jubilee de plenaria indulgentia is to be granted in oiu* English 
church for the same end.”—(Additional MSS. Brit. Mus., No. 41G0, 
p. 142.) Greenway says in his Narrative that “ Clement VIII. long 
afterwards continued to have a paternal regard for James; and, 
relying upon the information of persons who little understood the 
King s real disposition, still hoped for his conversion.” De Beau¬ 
mont in his Despatches frequently alludes to this opinion of the 
Pope, which he assures his government was totally unfounded, and 
that the hypocrisy of James had misled Clement in this respect. 
Nothing, indeed, is more clear than that the King never seriously 
intended to become Roman Catholic. 



DIMINUTION OF RECUSANCY FINES. 19 

selves upright and civil in all true carriage towards the 
King and State without contempt.” To this the Roman 
Catholic gentlemen answered, “ that recusancy alone 
might be held for an act of contempt.” But the Lords 
replied, “ that his Majesty would not account recusancy 
for a contempt;” and desired that the King’s gracious 
intentions in this respect might be signified generally 
to the whole body of Roman Catholics.* In confirma¬ 
tion of this official assurance, the fines for recusancy 
were actually remitted for the first two years of James’s 
reign. It appears from some notest of Sir Julius Caesar, 
who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1607, that in 
the last year of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, the sum paid 
into the receipt of the Exchequer at Westminster, by 
and for recusants’ fines and forfeitures, was 10,333?. 
9s. Id. In the next year little more than 300?. was 
paid at the Exchequer on this account. In the follow¬ 
ing year, being the second of James’s reign, the sum 
barely exceeded 200?.; but in 1605, the year of the 
Gunpowder Plot, the amount of recusants’ fines rises 
suddenly to more than 6,000?. It cannot be denied 
that these facts tend strongly to confirm the assertions 
made respecting the promises of the King; for they 
demonstrate that for some time one of the heaviest op¬ 
pressions under which the Roman Catholics of England 
laboured was actually suspended by him. 

Other demonstrations of favour to the Roman Catho- 

* Petition Apologetical of the Lay Catholics of England.—Letter 
from Sir E. Digby to Lord Salisbury, in the State-Paper Office, 
f Lansdowne MSS. No. 153, p. 206. 


20 


REAL OPINIONS OF THE KING 


lies were made at tlie same period. Titles of honour 
and lucrative employments were bestowed upon mem¬ 
bers of that persuasion, to the grievous discontent of 
the Protestant subjects, who made strong remonstrances 
to the King against the countenance shown by him to 
the obnoxious party.* 

But the fond hopes and expectations of the Roman 
Catholic party were dissipated and destroyed before 
six months of James’s government had passed away. 
Whatever indecision he may have exhibited, and 
whatever false impressions may have been created on 
his first accession to the English crown, and before he 
had weighed the several interests and ascertained the 
precise condition of the various parties in his kingdom, 
there is no doubt that symptoms of a disposition hostile 
to the Roman Catholics appeared as soon as he felt 
himself firmly seated on the throne. De Beaumont 
says,t that “ within a month after his arrival in London,* 
he answered an objection made in conversation to the 
appointment of Lord Henry Howard to a seat in the 
Privy Council, on account of his being a Catholic, 
by saying that 4 by this one tame duck he hoped to 
take many wild ones,’ at which the Catholics were 
much alarmed.” De Beaumont further reports, that 
“ he maintained openly at table that ‘ the Pope was the 
true Antichrist;’ with other like blasphemies, worthy 
of his doctrine.” J In the summer of 1603, the obscure 

# See Casaubon’s Letter to Fronto Dncseus, p. 74. 

f Depeches de Beaumont, 24 Mai, 1603. 

t Cardinal D’Ossat, in a letter to M. de Villeroy, from Rome, 
notices these ominous expressions of James : “ Ce parler, que fait le 


RESPECTING THE ROMAN CATHOLICS. 21 

and inexplicable plot of Markham and the priests was 
discovered; and on the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh, 
which took place in the November following, Sir 
Edward Coke declared, in his peculiar phraseology, 
that “the eyes of the Catholics should sooner fall out 
than they should ever see a toleration for the Romish 
superstition; for that the King had declared in the 
hearing of many, ‘I will lose the crown and my life, 
before ever I will alter my religion.’* In the ensuing 
February James called together his council, and assured 
them that “he never had any intention of granting 
toleration to the Catholics; that if he thought his sons 
would condescend to any such course, he would wish 
the kingdom translated to his daughter; that the miti¬ 
gation of their payments was in consideration that not 
any one of them had lift up his hand against him at his 
coming in, and so he gave them a year of probation to 
conform themselves ; which, seeing it had not wrought 
that effect, he had fortified all the laws that were 
against them, and made them stronger (saving for blood, 
from which he had a natural aversion), and commanded 
that they should be put into execution to the uttermost.” 
His intentions in this respect were publicly declared by 


Itoi d’Angleterre en public, et a table, des clioses plus serieuses, et 
meme contre l’autorite du Pape et du Saint Siege, ne semble pas 
correspondre a l’opinion, que quelques-uns ont eue de sa prudence ; 
si ce n’est qu’il le fasse a dessein, pour eviter quelque difficulty 
qu’il penseroit trouver a son plein etablissement, si on le tenoit pour 
dispose a se faire un join catolique.”—Lettres du Cardinal D'Ossat 
tom. v. p. 280. 

* See Criminal Trials, vol. i. p. 403. 



22 THE LAWS OF ELIZABETH AGAINST 

the Lords in the Star-Chamber, and signified by the 
Recorder to the City of London.* A proclamation was 
issued about the same time, dated the 22nd February, 
1603—4, in which the King, after protesting that he 
had “ never intended, nor given any man cause to 
expect, that he would make any innovation in matters 
of religion,” commanded all Jesuits, Seminarists, and 
other priests, to depart the realm before the 19th of 
March following, and not to return, under the penalty 
of being left to the rigour of the laws.f In his speech 
on opening the Parliament on the 22nd March, 1603 
-4, though he talks of revising the laws against Roman 
Catholics, and of “ clearing them by reason in case they 
had been in times past more rigorously executed by 
judges than the meaning of the law was,” he inveighs 
against the Roman Catholic clergy, and declares that 
“ as long as they continue to maintain their most 
obnoxious doctrines, they are in no way sufferable to 
live in this kingdom.” J These repeated threats and 
declarations by the King were practically enforced by 
proceedings in Parliament, and generally throughout 
the country ; and they distinctly indicated to the dis ¬ 
mayed Roman Catholics a return to the persecutions and 
indignities of the reign of Elizabeth. Bills disabling 
recusants to sit in Parliament, and prohibiting the im¬ 
portation or printing of Popish books, were rejected in 
the House of Commons by small majorities; but an 
Act § was passed, after much discussion in both houses, 


* Winwood, vol. ii. p. 49. + Rymer’s Fcedera, vol. xvi. p. 572. 

X Commons’ Journals, vol. i. § 1 Jac. I., c. 4. 


RECUSANCY PUT IN FORCE. 


23 


declaring that all the laws of Elizabeth against Jesuits 
and Priests were to be put in due and exact execution. 
Two-thirds of the estates of recusants, and all their 
moveable goods, were directed to be seized in satisfac¬ 
tion of the fine of 20/. a month, imposed by the 29th of 
Elizabeth; and commissions immediately issued for the 
valuation of such lands and goods. In the following 
year the recusancy fines, neglected or remitted for 
several preceding years, amounting in some cases to ' 
very large sums of money, were suddenly demanded; 
and recusants of large property, who had managed to 
evade the payment of them during the reign of Elizabeth, 
were at once reduced to beggary by being called upon 
for tremendous arrears. Those who could have paid 
the fines from month to month as they accrued, were 
utterly ruined by the accumulation of penalties now 
rigorously exacted at a single payment.* There was a 
circumstance, too, in connexion with the exaction of 
the recusancy fines, which much inflamed the indigna¬ 
tion of the Roman Catholics. James had brought with 
him from Scotland a number of needy followers, who, 
having spent their small substance in riotous extrava¬ 
gance on the King’s arrival in England, had now to 
repair their broken fortunes. To these court paupers 
the lands and goods of wealthy recusants were assigned 
by name ; and thus the Roman Catholic nobility and 
gentry were driven to compound with greedy foreigners 
for the preservation of their estates.f 

# Greenway’s MS. 

f Osborne’s Memoirs of the Reign of King James, chap. x. 


24 


INDIGNATION OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS. 


In the course of this session of Parliament a bill was 
introduced, declaring that all persons who had been 
educated in Roman Catholic seminaries abroad should 
be incapable of' taking or holding any lands or goods 
within the King’s dominions. By another part of 
this enactment, persons professing the Roman Catholic 
religion were in effect disabled from educating their 
children in their own faith; for if they maintained a 
schoolmaster in their own houses, who did not go 
to church, or who was not licensed by the bishop of 
the diocese, they were liable to forfeit 40 s. for every 
day they retained him, the schoolmaster himself being 
subject to a similar fine ; and if they sent their chil¬ 
dren to be educated abroad, they were liable to a 
penalty of 10(R. It was quite natural that the Roman 
Catholics should behold these proceedings with feelings 
of disappointment and indignation, proportioned to 
their previous expectation of favour. On the third 
reading of the above-mentioned statute in the House 
of Lords, which passed by a large majority, Lord- 
Montague, a Roman Catholic peer, rose in his place, 
and expressed his opinions and feelings against the 
measure with so much warmth, that the House com¬ 
mitted him to the Fleet.* 

Sir Everard Digby, in a letter f to Lord Salisbury, 
boldly declares the causes and the dangers of the pre¬ 
valent dissatisfaction among the Catholics: “If,” says 
he, “ your Lordship ajid the State think it fit to deal 

# Lords’ Journals, 25 and 26 June, 1604. 

f State-Paper Office. 


NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE KING OF SPAIN. 25 

severely with the Catholics, within brief there will be 
massacres, rebellions, and desperate attempts against 
the King and State. For it is a general received 
reason amongst Catholics, that there is not that ex¬ 
pecting and suffering course now to be run that was in 
the Queen’s time, who was the last of her line, and last 
in expectance to run violent courses against Catholics; 
for then it was hoped that the King that now is, would 
have been at least free from persecuting, as his promise 
was before his coming into this realm, and as divers his 
promises have been since his coming. All these pro¬ 
mises every man sees broken.” 

Still, though all were alike disappointed and dis¬ 
contented, it is clear that the general body of the 
English Roman Catholics did not at this time con- 
template forcible measures for the removal of their 
grievances. Many, however, and in particular those 
who were attached to the Jesuits’ party, now wholly 
despaired of obtaining from the justice of the King, or 
by peaceable means, any alleviation of their degradation 
and misery. Individuals of that party, therefore, who 
afterwards became active conspirators in the Gun¬ 
powder Plot, resumed a negotiation with the King of 
Spain, which had been commenced and favourably 
entertained during the last year of Elizabeth’s reign. 

The object of the former negotiation had been to obtain 
« 

the assistance of Spanish money, and a Spanish army 
in England, and to promise the active and armed co¬ 
operation of the English Roman Catholics. The 
object of the present message was the same, represent- 

C 


26 


NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE KING OF SPAIN. 


ing the hopeless state of the Roman Catholics, and 
inviting the King of Spain to land an army at Milford 
Haven, in aid of a projected rising of the disappointed 
party in the western counties of England. But 
although the Spanish King had lent a ready ear to 
the former invitation, he was at this point of time 
desirous of concluding an advantageous peace with 
James, and therefore declined to interfere, except in 
the form of remonstrance and advice. 


SCHEME OF AN EXPLOSION BY GUNPOWDER. 


27 


CHAPTER II. 

Plot originally contrived by Robert Catesby—Account of him— 

His family history—Discloses the scheme to John Wright and 
Thomas Winter—Account of them and their respective families 
—Further development of the plot—Guy Fawkes taken into the 
confederacy—Account of him and his family—Thomas Percy 
joins the conspiracy—His character—Oath of secrecy—House 
taken for the purposes of the conspirators—Robert Keyes taken 
into the confederacy—Treaty of peace between Spain and 
England—Further preparations of the conspirators—Mr. Poimd’s 
case—Commencement of the mine—Ultimate views of the con¬ 
spirators - Discussion of notice to be given to Roman Catholic 
peers—Parliament prorogued from February 7th to October 3rd— 

John Grant and Robert Winter taken into the confederacy— 

Account of them—The working the mine—The bell in the wall 
—Hiring the coal-cellar—Fawkes despatched to Flanders to 
obtain foreign aid—Prosecution of recusants continued—Mission 
of Sir Edmund Bay nil am to Rome—Parliament again prorogued 
to November 5th—Catesby’s preparation of an armed force—Sir 
Everard Digby, Ambrose Rookwood, and Francis Tresham taken 
into the confederacy—Catesby partially communicates tho design 
to Humphrey and Stephen Littleton. 

It appears to have been about the time of the open Scheme of a 

x Powder Plot. 

declaration of James’s intentions respecting the Roman 
Catholics, and of the failure of the negotiation with 
the King of Spain, namely, in the spring and summer 
of 1604, that the design of blowing up the House of 
Lords with gunpowder, at the opening of the Parlia- 

C 2 


28 


CATESBY" THE CONTRIVER OF THE PLOT. 


Robert 

Catesby. 


ment, and thus destroying, at a single blow, the King, 
the Lords, and the Commons, first presented itself to 
the mind of Robert Catesby. It has been suggested, 
that the notion of an explosion may possibly have 
originally occurred to his mind in consequence of an 
accident by gunpowder, mentioned by Stow* as having 
taken place on the 27th of April, 1603, and by which 
thirteen men were killed. It is not, however, neces¬ 
sary to recur to this accident for the suggestion of the 
scheme. This was not by any means the first instance 
of a gunpowder plot. “ There be recounted in 
histories,” says Father Parsons, in his ‘ Letter touching 
the New Oath of Allegiance,’ “ many attempts of the 
same kinds, and some also by Protestants in our days; 
as that of them, who at Antwerp placed a whole bark 
of powder in the great street of that city, where the 
Prince of Parma, with his nobility, was to pass ; and 
that of him in the Hague, that would have blown up 
the whole Council of Holland upon private revenge.” 
Indeed the same project of blowing up the Parliament 
House with gunpowder, is said to have been formed in 
the time of Queen Elizabeth.f 

Robert Catesby, to whom the original contrivance of 
the Gunpowder Treason is usually ascribed, was at the 
commencement of the seventeenth centurv the sole 

•J 

representative of one of the most distinguished families 
in England. He was the lineal descendant of that Wil¬ 
liam Catesby, who was the favourite minister of 


* Stow’s Chronicle, p. 818. 
f Abbott’s Antilogia, p. 137. 


ACCOUNT OF CATESBY. 


29 


Richard III., and who, being taken prisoner at Bos- 
worth Field, was afterwards attainted and executed for 
High Treason. This attainder was afterwards reversed; 
and the large estates in Northamptonshire, Warwick¬ 
shire, and Oxfordshire, which his ancestors had pos¬ 
sessed for centuries, were transmitted to Robert 
Catesby.* His father, Sir William Catesby, who died 
in 1598,f became a convert to the Roman Catholic 
religion in 15804 and was frequently imprisoned 
for recusancy. His mother was a daughter of Sir 
Robert Throckmorton of Coughton, and a sister of 
Thomas Throckmorton, whose persecutions on account 
of his religion have been above related. At the 
period of the Gunpowder Plot Lady Catesby was 
still living, and resided at Ashby St. Lcgers in 
Northamptonshire. Robert Catesby, who was an only 
son, was born at Lapworth, in Warwickshire, one of his 
father’s estates, in 1573 ; and was entered at Glouces¬ 
ter Hall (now Worcester College), in Oxford, in 1586.§ 
In 1592, before he was of full age, he married a daugh¬ 
ter of Sir Thomas Leigh, of Stoneleigh, who was a 
Protestant gentleman of conspicuous wealth and in¬ 
fluence in the county of Warwick, and the ancestor 

# Dugdale’s Warwickshire, p. 586. 

f Parish Register of Ashby St. Legers. 

X More’s Historia Societatis Jesu, p. 74. 

§ Fullman’s MSS. at Corpus Christi College, Yol. II. Dod, in 
his Church History, vol. ii. p. 380, says that “ Gloucester Hall was 
a house very much suspected for their inclination towards the old 
religion, several of the sojourners there being privately of that 
communion.” Francis Tresham is said to have belonged to Glouces¬ 
ter Hall. See Wood’s Ath. Oxon. vol. i. p. 754, edit. Bliss. 


30 


ACCOUNT OF CATESBY. 


of the present Lord Leigh. Sir Thomas Leigh settled 
considerable property to the uses of the marriage.* 
Within a year after his marriage, Catesby came into 
possession of the estate of Chastleton, upon the death 
of his grandmother, and resided there until his sale 
of that property in the year 1602. In the meantime, 
his wife died, leaving him with an only son, who 
at the time of the Gunpowder Plot was about ten 
years old.t Although Robert Catesby was sole heir 
in expectancy to the large estates of the Catesby 
family, none of them excepting Chastleton ever came 
into his actual possession, being under settlement to his 
mother Lady Catesby, who survived him. Father 
Greenway seems, therefore, to have been mistaken in 
his statement, that he derived great wealth immediately 
upon his father’s death in 1598. 

Dr. Lingard asserts that Robert Catesby was origi¬ 
nally a Protestant, and his marriage into a Protestant 
family appears to countenance the suggestion. Father 
Greenway, however, does not notice this fact, and 
describes Catesby as enthusiastically attached to the 
Roman Catholic religion, and as devoting himself 

* Marriage Settlement of Robert Catesby and Catherine Leigh, 
dated 2nd March, 34 Eliz. 1591-2. Orig. in possession of the 
present proprietor of Chastleton. 

f “Robert Catcsbie, son of Robert Catesbie, was baptized the 
lltli day of Nov. 1595.” Parish Register of Chastleton. This child 
was in London at the time of the discovery of the Plot and his 
father’s flight. See William Andrews’s Examination at Leicester, and 
State Paper Office ; and Richard Parker’s Examination, Nov. 9, 1G05. 
What subsequently became of him is unknown ; but it has been said, 
though without sufficient authority, that he afterwards married a 
daughter of Thomas Percy. See Baker’s Northamptonshire. 


IMPLICATED IN THE ESSEX REBELLION. 31 

with the utmost fervour to the task of rescuing the 
adherents of the ancient faith from the bondage under 
which they laboured. Having with this object entered 
warmly into the Earl of Essex’s insurrection, he was 
wounded and taken prisoner on that occasion; and 
with difficulty, and by means of the great exertions 
of his friends, purchased his pardon by a fine of 3,000/.* 
He was afterwards involved in all the treasonable 
projects of the discontented Roman Catholics during 
the last two years of Queen Elizabeth’s reign ; and 
it appears from a letter of Camden’s, dated only 
nine days before the Queen’s death, that Catesby 
and several other gentlemen “ hunger-starved for 
innovations,” among whom were Sir Edward Baynham, 
and the two Wrights, (all of them conspirators in the 
Gunpowder Treason,) were at that time committed 
by the Lords of the Council for some seditious move¬ 
ments, f 

Father Green way describes Catesby’s person as 
above six feet in stature, and his countenance as 
exceedingly noble and expressive. He says that his 
conversation and manners were peculiarly attractive 
and imposing, and that by the dignity of his character, 

* Lingard’s History, vol. ix. p. 32; Lodge’s Illustrations, vol. iii. 
p. 120. The sale of Chastleton to tire ancestor of the present 
proprietor in May 1602, for the sum of 4,0001., seems to show that 
Catesby sold his estate to save his life on this occasion. For those 
who take an interest in the question of Bacon's conduct in the 
prosecution of the Earl of Essex, it may be worth while to remark 
that 1,2001. of Catesby’s fine for the Essex treason, was paid to 
Sir Francis Bacon. See Council Book, August, 1602. 

f Camdeni Epistohc, p 347. 


32 


ACCOUNT OF JOHN WRIGHT 


John 

Wright. 


fie exercised an irresistible influence over the minds of 
those who associated with him. 

It is uncertain, and not very material, whether in 
order of time Catesby first disclosed his scheme to 
John Wright or to Thomas Winter. The latter, in 
his confession, published in the 4 Discourse of* the 
Manner of discovering the Gunpowder Plot,’ says, 
that when he first came to London, about Lent, 
1603-4, at the urgent solicitation of Catesby, he found 
him and John Wright together at Lambeth, and that 
Catesby then declared his project to him; and though 
he does not expressly state that Wright was previously 
acquainted with it, that fact seems to be almost a 
necessary inference from his relation. At all events 
it appears certain that Catesby, Wright, and Winter, 
were the only persons who were privy to the design 
before the journey of the latter into Flanders. Fawkes 
expressly says,* that these 44 three first devised the 
Plot, and were the chief directors of all the par¬ 
ticularities of it.” 

John Wright was descended from a respectable 
family in Yorkshire, the Wrights of Plowland in Hol- 
derness. At the time of the Powder Plot his perma¬ 
nent residence was at Twigmore in Lincolnshire. He 
had been a Protestant, and since his conversion had 
been harassed with persecutions and imprisonment. 
His friendship with Catesby and Thomas Winter 
was of long standing, and he was intimately connected 


# Fawkes’ Examination, Nov. 19, 1605.—State-Paper Office. 
Tanner’s MSS. in the Bodleian Library, lxxv. p. 196. 


AMD THOMAS WINTER. 


33 


with Thomas Percy, who had married his sister. As 
soon as he became a party to the Plot, he removed 
from his estate in Lincolnshire to a house belonging to 
the Catesby family at Lap worth in Warwickshire. 
John Wright was said to be one of the best swordsmen 
of his time : * both he and his brother Christopher, who 
was also a party to the confederacy, were actively 
engaged in the Earl of Essex’s rebellion; and Christopher 
Wright had been employed on a treasonable embassy 
to the King of Spain from the English Roman Catholics 
soon after the death of Elizabeth. 

Thomas Winter was a younger brother of Robert 
Winter of Huddington, the head of a family which 
had been in possession of large estates in Worcester¬ 
shire since the time of Henry YI. The Winters were 
zealous Roman Catholics, and being connected by 
marriage with the Throckmortons of Coughton, were 
thus related to Catesby and Tresham; and on their 
mother’s side they were connected with Charles 
Neville, Earl of Westmoreland, one of the Roman 
Catholic lords who headed the unfortunate rising in 
the north in 1570. Thomas Winter had been deeply 
engaged in all the plots and intrigues of his party at 
the close of Elizabeth’s reign, and in 1601, had been 
sent by them into Spain expressly to treat with the 
Spanish King for the aid of an armed force. Pre¬ 
viously to that time, he had served several years against 
the King of Spain in the army of the States, but had 
quitted his military service under a Protestant power 


C 


o 

0 


Thomas 

Winter. 


# Greenway's IMS. 


34 MEETING OF THE THREE CONSPIRATORS AT LAMBETH. 


Three Con¬ 
spirators 
meet at 
Lambeth. 


on account of religious scruples. He was afterwards 
employed as secretary, or in some occupation of a 
similar nature, to Lord Mounteagle. Winter was an 
accomplished and able man, familiarly conversant with 
several languages, the intimate friend and confidant of 
Catesby, and of great account with the Eoman Catholic 
party generally, in consequence of his talents for 
intrigue and his personal acquaintance with ministers 
of influenee in foreign courts.* 

At their meeting at Lambeth, Catesby informed 
Winter that “ he had bethought him of a way at one 
instant to deliver them from all their bonds, and, 
without any foreign help, to replant again the Catholic 
religion;” and then plainly told him that “ his plan 
was to blow up the Parliament House with gunpowder; 
for,” said he, “ in that place they have done us all the 
mischief, and perchance God hath designed that place 
for their punishment.” Winter was startled, and 
hesitated, saying, “ that true it was, this struck at the 
root, and would breed a confusion fit to beget new 
alterations; but if it should not take effect (as most of 
this nature miscarried), the scandal would be so great 
which the Catholic religion might thereby sustain, as 
not only their enemies but their friends also would, 
with good reason, condemn them.” Catesby replied, 
“ the nature of the disease required so sharp a remedy,” 
and asked Winter if he would give his consent. 
Winter answered, that “ in this or what else soever, if 
Catesby resolved upon it, he would venture his life 

* Grecnway’s IMS. 


THOMAS WINTER SENT TO FLANDERS. 35 

but suggested some practical difficulties, such as “ want 
of a proper house, and of one to carry the mine, noise 
in the working, and such like.” “Let us give the 
attempt,” said Catesby, “ and where it faileth, pass no 
further. But first,” added he, “ because we will leave 
no peaceable and quiet way untried, you shall go over 
and inform the Constable * of the state of the Catholics 
here in England, entreating him to solicit his Majesty 
at his coming hither, that the penal laws may be re¬ 
called, and we admitted into the rank of his other 
subjects; withal you may bring over some confident 
gentleman, such as you shall understand best able for 
this business.” For this purpose Catesby named 
Fawkes, who was already well known to the discon¬ 
tented Roman Catholics in England as willing to 
engage in any enterprise for the restoration of the 
ancient religion, f In compliance with this suggestion, 
Winter repaired to the Netherlands. In his conference 
with the Constable Velasco at Bergen, he received 
general assurances of goodwill on the part of the King 
of Spain towards the English Roman Catholics, but no 
encouragement to expect that the Ambassador would 
stipulate decisively for their relief in the treaty of 
peace which was then in the course of arrangement; 
and these impressions being confirmed by Sir W. Stan¬ 
ley and other English Roman Catholics, then in the 

* This was Velasco, the Constable of Castile, who had arrived in 
Flanders on his way to England, to conclude a peace between 
James and the King of Spain. 

f These particulars are taken from Thomas Winter's Confession, 
in the ‘ Discourse of the Gunpowder Plot.’ 


36 


ACCOUNT OF GUIDO FAWKES AND HIS FAMILY. 


military service of tlie Archduke in Flanders, he 
returned into England, taking Fawkes along with him, 
who had been further recommended to him by Father 
Owen and the priests there as a “fit and resolute man 
for the execution of the enterprise.”* 

Guy Fawkes. Guido, or Guy Fawkes, whose name has been more 
generally associated with this Plot than that of any of 
the other conspirators, in consequence of the prominent 
part he undertook in the execution of it, was a gentle¬ 
man of good family, and respectable parentage in Y ork- 
sliire. His father, Edward Fawkes, was a notary at 
York, and held the office of Registrar and Advocate of 
the Consistory Court of the Cathedral Church there.t 
Edward Fawkes died in 1578, leaving a son, Guy, and 
two daughters. There is reasonable evidence to show 
that Guy Fawkes received his early education in a 

* Fawkes’s Confession, Nov. 19, 1605.—State-Paper Office. 

f The proof of this identification of Guy Fawkes is sufficiently com¬ 
plete. In an Examination, dated the 7tli of November, 1605, in which 
he, for the first time, gives his real name, Fawkes says, that he “ was 
horn in the city of York, and that his father’s name was Edward 
Fawkes, a gentleman, a younger brother, who died about thirty years 
before, and left to him but small living, which he spent.” Now it 
appears from certain proceedings in the Star-Chamber in 1573, the 
record of which is still extant, that an Edward Fawkes, a notary, was 
at that time living at York in a respectable sphere of life ; and in the 
register of burials in St. Michael-le-Belfrey, at York, is the following 
entry : “Mr. Edward Fawkes, Register and Advocate of the Consis¬ 
tory Court of the Cathedral Church of York, about forty-six years of 
age, buried in the Cathedral Church, January 17th, 1578.” Among 
the baptisms of the same parish appears the name of Guy Faw r kes, 
son of Edward Fawkes, with the date of April 16tli, 1570. Those 
who may be inclined to pursue the proofs of this identification, and 
to learn more of the family history of Guy Fawkes, will be gratified 
by referring to an extremely interesting tract published anonymously 
in 1850, entitled “ The Fawkes’s of York in the 16th Century.” 


ACCOUNT OF GUIDO FAWKES. 


37 


free-school near the city of York, founded by a charter 
of Philip and Mary, and placed under the patronage of 
the Dean and Chapter; and it is said that two persons 
afterwards highly distinguished by station, learning and 
virtue, Thomas Morton, Bishop of Durham, and Sir 
Thomas Cheke, were his schoolfellows there.* There 
is no doubt that the parents of Fawkes were Protest¬ 
ants, and it may therefore be assumed that he received 
his earliest education among the adherents of the 
Protestant faith. His mother having married a member 
of a zealous Roman Catholic family a few years after 
his father’s death, he probably became an inmate of his 
stepfather’s house from that time, and would naturally 
be brought up in his stepfather’s religion.f Having 
spent the small property which he inherited from his 
father, he enlisted as a soldier of fortune in the Spanish 
army in Flanders, and was present at the taking of 
Calais, by the Archduke Albert, in 1598. He was 
well known to the English Roman Catholics, and had 
been despatched by Sir William Stanley and Owen, 
from Flanders, to ijoin Christopher Wright on his 
embassy to Philip II., immediately after Queen Eliza- 


* Fuller’s Worthies, vol. ii. p. 540. Strype’s Life of Sir John 
Cheke, ed. 1705, p. 190. 

f The Fawkes’s of York, p. 32. At the time of the gunpowder 
plot, his mother was still living. Sir William Waad, in a letter to 
Lord Salisbury, reporting a conversation with Fawkes, says, “ Fawkes’s 
mother is alive and remarried, and he hath a brother in one of the 
Inns of Court. John and Christopher Wright were schoolfellows 
of Fawkes, and neighbour’s children. Tesmond the Jesuit was at 
that time schoolfellow also with them. So as this crew have been 
brought up together.”—State-Paper Office, Additional Papers, No. 48. 


38 


CHARACTER OF FAWKES. 


Thomas 

Percy. 


be til’s death. Father Green way, who knew all the 
conspirators intimately, describes him as “a man* of 
great piety, of exemplary temperance, of mild and 
cheerful demeanour, an enemy of broils and disputes, a 
faithful friend, and remarkable for his punctual atten¬ 
dance upon religious observances.” His society is 
stated, by the same authority, to have been “ sought by 
aH. the most distinguished in the Archduke’s camp for 
nobility and virtue.” If this account of his character 
is correct, we are to look upon this man, not according 
to the popular notion, as a mercenary ruffian, ready for 
hire to perform-the chief part in any tragedy of blood, 
but as an enthusiast whose understanding had been 
distorted by superstition, and in whom fanaticism had 
conquered the better feelings of nature. His language 
and conduct after the discovery of the Plot are charac¬ 
teristic of a resolute fanatic, acting upon perverted 
notions of right and wrong, but by no means destitute 
of piety or humanity. 

Thomas Winter returned to London with Fawkes, 
about the latter end of April, 16*04, and reported to 
Catesby the slender encouragement he had received 
from the Constable to expect any material assistance 
from the King of Spain or himself in the way of 
negotiation. This result of the mission had probably 
been anticipated by Catesby, who seems to have only 
suggested it in order to remove the conscientious 
scruples of Winter. 

A few days after Winter’s return, Thomas Percy, one 
of the most prominent characters in this transaction, 


ACCOUNT OF THOMAS PERCY. 


39 


came to London, probably upon Catesby’s invitation. 
Percy was confidential steward to Henry Earl of North¬ 
umberland, who had appointed him one of the band of 
gentleman-pensioners. It is clear that he was related 
to the Earl of Northumberland, but the precise branch 
of that family to which he belonged has never been 
satisfactorily ascertained.* In his youth Percy is said 
to have been dissipated and licentious, but sinCe 
his conversion to the Catholic faith, he, like Catesby, had 
become an enthusiastic devotee. Father Greenway says 
that he also was originally a Protestant, and that at the 
period of the Gunpowder Plot “ he was about forty-six 
years of age, though, from the whiteness of his head, he 
appeared to be older; his figure was tall and handsome; 
his eyes large and lively, and the expression of his 
countenance pleasing, though grave; and notwith¬ 
standing the boldness of his character, his manners 
were gentle and quiet.”f He had been employed, as 

# It lias been suggested that he belonged to a family who had 
been settled for several generations at Scotton, in the parish of 
Famliam, in the West Riding of Yorkshire; but this suggestion 
rests entirely upon the fact that Guy Fawkes had undoubtedly 
resided at Scotton after the death of his father, and the peculiar 
connection subsisting between these two conspirators.—See “ The 
Fawkes’s of York,” p. 33. On the other hand, the Percies of Scotton 
were very distantly, if at all, connected with the Earl of Northum¬ 
berland. Percy is always spoken of as a near kinsman of that 
nobleman - Winwood’s Memorials, vol. ii. p. 170. The Earl himself 
calls him his kinsman.—Collins's Peerage, vol. iv. p. 139. Another 
conjecture is, that he was a younger son of Edward Percy, of Beverley, 
a grandson of the fourth Earl of Northumberland, and some facts 
have been industriously collected to support this identification; but 
they by no means amount to sufficient proof.—Collectanea Genealo- 
gica et. Topograpliica, vol. ii., p. 60. 

t Greenway’s MS. 


40 MEETING OF CONSPIRATORS, AND OATH OF SECRECY. 


above related, bv the Earl of Northumberland, on a 

V 

mission to the King in Scotland, previously to the 
death of Elizabeth, for the purpose of ascertaining the 
disposition of James towards the Roman Catholics. He 
returned into England with assurances of James’s 
favourable intentions, reporting to the Roman Catholics 
the King’s promise of a full toleration of their religion, 
and urging them on that ground to support his title. 
When the King afterwards adopted a course of conduct 
totally different from these assurances, the mind of 
Percy Avas filled with deepest distress and indignation. 
He imagined that his Roman Catholic brethren re¬ 
garded him with suspicion or contempt, as one who 
had been used either as a Avilling instrument, or as a 
dupe, for the purpose of betraying them ; and in this 
state of mind, he was prepared to yield his ready assist¬ 
ance to any scheme, which might enable him to A r indi- 
cate the sincerity of his devotion to the Roman Ca¬ 
tholic cause. 

Arrange- Upon Percy’s joining Catesby at his lodging in 

Conspiracy London, Thomas Winter, John Wright, and Fawkes 

and Oath of 

secrecy. were present. Percy’s address to them as soon as he 
came into their company was, “ Well, gentlemen, shall 
we always talk , and never do anything?” Catesby 
then drew him aside and whispered to him of some¬ 
thing to be done, but proposed that before the parti¬ 
culars of the scheme should be disclosed, all of them 
should take a solemn oath of secrecy. This was 
agreed to; and accordingly a feAv days afterwards they 
met by appointment at a house in the fields beyond 


HOUSE NEXT TO THE PARLIAMENT HOUSE TAKEN. 41 

St. Clement’s Inn, and Catesby, Percy, Thomas Winter, 

John Wright, and Fawkes, then severally took an oath 
in the following form: “You shall swear by the 
blessed Trinity, and by the sacrament you now propose 
to receive, never to disclose directly or indirectly, by 
word or circumstance, the matter that shall be pro¬ 
posed to you to keep secret, nor desist from the execu¬ 
tion thereof until the rest shall give you leave.” This 
oath was administered to them by each other in the 
most solemn manner, “ kneeling • down upon their 
knees with their hands laid upon a primer.”* Imme¬ 
diately after they had taken the oath, Catesby explained 
to Percy, and Winter and Wright to Fawkes, that the 
project intended was to blow up the Parliament House 
with gunpowder when the King went, to the House of 
Lords. This was approved by both of them; and after 
some consultation and discussion, respecting the means 
of effecting their purpose, they all adjourned to an 
upper room in the same house, where they heard mass, 
and received the sacrament from Father Gerard, a 
Jesuit missionary, in confirmation of their vow. But 
both Fawkes and Thomas Winter (who were the only 
individuals of this party who could be examined as to 
tliis fact after the discovery of the plot, Catesby, 

Wright, and Percy having been slain in Worcester¬ 
shire) declare that the secret was not imparted to Gerard. 

During Winter’s absence in the Netherlands, Catesby Ferris’s 

... . . House taker. 

had made inquiries respecting a house situated next to by Percy. 

* Thomas Winter’s Confession in the ‘ Discourse of the Gunpowder 
Plot.’ 


42 ROBERT KEYES TAKEN INTO THE CONFEDERACY. 

the Parliament House, which seemed particularly well 
adapted to the purpose of the conspirators. This 
house he found was held by one Ferris, as tenant to 
Whinneard, the keeper of the King’s wardrobe : it was 
now arranged that Percy should purchase the interest 
of Ferris in the house, under the pretence that it was 
conveniently situated for his occasional residence, while 
discharging the duties of his office of gentleman-pen¬ 
sioner. The house was accordingly taken in Percy’s 
name.* From the-cellar of this house a mine was to 
be made through the wall of the Parliament House, 
and a quantity of gunpowder and combustibles to be 
deposited immediately under the House of Lords. It 
was arranged that Fawkes, who was not known in 
London, should receive the keys, and keep possession 
of the house, under the assumed name of Johnson, as 
Percy’s servant. Soon afterwards the Parliament was 
adjourned until the 7th of February following; and 
upon this the conspirators agreed to depart into the 
country, and to meet again about the beginning of 
November. In the interval it was thought desirable 
that a house should be taken at Lambeth, at which the 
timber required for constructing the mine, and also the 
powder and other combustibles, might be collected in 
small quantities at a time, and afterwards removed by 
night to the house at Westminster. The custody of 
the house at Lambeth was, at Catesby’s suggestion, 
committed to Robert Keyes, who, after being sworn in 

* The original agreement with Ferris for the house, dated 
24th May, 1604, may be seen at the State-Paper Office. 


PEACE BETWEEN FRANCE AND ENGLAND. 


43 


the same manner as the others, was intrusted with the 
secret, and received into the number of’ conspirators, 
shortly before Midsummer. 

There is reason to believe that Robert Keyes, Key, Robert 

0y0g # 

or Kay, was the son of Edward Kay, a Protestant 
clergyman, of Stavely in the north of Derbyshire, who 
was himself a younger son of John Kay of Woodsam in 
Yorkshire, from whom the Baronets of that name are 
lineally descended. The mother of Robert Keyes 
was a daughter of Sir Robert Tyrwhitt of Kettleby, a 
Roman Catholic gentleman, of great opulence in Lin¬ 
colnshire. Keyes seems to have been in indigent circum¬ 
stances : Father Greenway says, that “ he was intro¬ 
duced merely for the sake of his personal services, 
having no estates, and no more money than was neces¬ 
sary to support himself and his wife.” He is described 
as of Glatton in Huntingdonshire; but for some time 
previously to this period, he had been with his family 
an inmate in the mansion of Lord Mordaunt, at Turvey 
in Bedfordshire, and his wife was employed in bringing 
up the children of that nobleman.* Lord Mordaunt’s 
intimacy with Keyes was a circumstance which was 
afterwards strongly pressed against him in the Star- 
Chamber, as indicating his privity to the Plot. 

In the course of the autumn of 1604, the treaty of Treaty of 

Peace be- 

pcace between Spain and England was concluded. The tweenSpam 
Constable, Velasco, interceded for the English Roman land - 
Catholics, and assured James that the King of Spain 

* Lord Mordaunt’s Examination, 4tli February, 1605, in the State- 
Paper Office. 


44 


RESOLUTION TO PROCEED WITH THE MINE. 


Resolution 
to proceed 
with the 
Mine. 


would regard airy indulgence shown to them as a favour 
conferred upon himself; but their toleration was not 
expressly insisted upon: and James and his advisers 
saw plainly, that however urgently the King of Spain 
might press the point, he was not disposed to sacrifice 
to the attainment of that object the solid advantages he 
flattered himself he had gained by the treaty of peace. 
Unrestrained, therefore, by any fear of hostile inter¬ 
ference on the part of the King of Spain, the Govern¬ 
ment now proceeded with renewed activity to enforce 
the penal laws against the Roman Catholics. Express 
instructions to this effect were again given to the 
Judges in the Star-Chamber, previously to their leaving 
London on the summer circuits; the domiciliary searches 
were renewed with more rigour than ever; and a new 
commission issued for the effectual expulsion of the 
Jesuit missionaries.* 

The conspirators, united and exasperated by these 
proceedings, which had entirely removed all scruples of 
conscience and humanity respecting their sanguinary 
project, met in London shortly before Michaelmas term, 
according to the agreement they had made previously 
to their separation. It was then determined to proceed 
at once with the mine; and Fawkes was despatched to 
the house at Westminster in his assumed character of 
Percy’s servant, to make observations and prepare the 
means of operation. An unexpected impediment arose 
from the circumstance that the Parliamentary Com¬ 
missioners for arranging the proposed union between 

* Green way’s IMS. Rymer’s Fcedera, vol. xvi. p. 597. 


HARSH PROCEEDINGS AGAINST POUND. 


45 


Scotland and England had appointed to hold their 
meetings in the house taken by Percy. In consequence 
of this difficulty, though they had collected a large 
quantity of powder, the commencement of the mine 
was deferred for about a month. During the interval 
a transaction took place, not mentioned by historians of 
this period, which excited extreme interest amongst the 
whole body of English Roman Catholics. 

It appears that at the assizes at Manchester, in the 
summer of 1604, several Jesuits or seminary priests, 
were tried, condemned, and executed under the statute 
27th Elizabeth, for high treason, in remaining within 
the realm after the time prescribed by the royal procla¬ 
mation. The judges of assize for the northern circuit, 
Baron Savile and Serjeant Phillips, were reported to 
have uttered strong invectives against the Roman 
Catholics on occasion of these prosecutions; and the 
former in particular was said to have declared as law to 
the grand jury, that all persons attending upon the 
celebration of mass, by a Jesuit or seminary priest, 
were guilty of felony. Upon this, Mr. Pound, an 
aged Roman Catholic gentleman residing in Lancashire, 
who had been imprisoned in Queen Elizabeth’s time on 
account of his religion, presented a petition to the 
King, complaining generally of the persecution of the 
Roman Catholics, and in particular of the rigorous pro¬ 
ceedings and alarming doctrines of the Judges at 
Manchester. The language of the petition was re¬ 
spectful, and the petitioner merely stated the facts as 
represented to him, and prayed for a commission to 


Pound's 

Case. 


46 


POUND’S CASE. 


examine into their truth. He was immediately arrested 
and carried before the Privy Council; and, after 
an examination, was prosecuted by the Attorney- 
General in the Star-Chamber for a contempt. The 
information in the Star-Chamber was heard on the 
29th of November, 1604, before the Lord Chancellor 
Egerton, Chief Justice Popham, the Archbishop of 
Canterbury (Bancroft), the Bishop of London, the Earl 
of Salisbury (then Viscount Cranburne), the Lord 
Burleigh, and several other judges and members of the 
Privy Council. No pains were spared to render this 
judicial proceeding against an inoffensive old man as 
imposing as possible. Sir Edward Coke inveighed 
violently against the doctrines and practices of the 
Ptomanists; the Lords of the Council and Judges 
followed in the same ■ strain ;* and in the end, Mr. 
Pound was sentenced by the Court to be imprisoned in 
the Fleet during the King’s pleasure; to stand in the 
pillory, both at Lancaster and Westminster, and to pay 
a fine of one thousand pounds. Many members of the 
Court proposed to add to this severe sentence, that the 
old man should be nailed to the pillory, and have both 
his ears cut off. This barbarous proposition was 
negatived by a majority of one or two voices only.f 
These proceedings, together with the unremitted search 

# The Archbishop of Canterbury said, that “ all Catholics held 
themselves so strictly tied by the rules of their religion, as never one 
to accuse another; therefore,” said he, “ nothing is to be discovered 
from them but by putting some J udas among them ”—Rushton Papers. 

f Rushton Papers. See Winwood’s Memorials, vol. ii. p. 3G, 
where this sentence is somewhat differently stated. 


THE MINE COMMENCED. 


47 


for priests, the rigorous exaction of recusancy lines, in 
manifest breach of the repeated promises made by the 
King to the contrary, and the whispers of still more 
severe measures intended in the ensuing Parliament, 
fdled the minds of the Roman Catholics at this period 
with indignation and despair. 

Catesby and his confederates assembled in London, Commence- 
according to their previous arrangement, about the Mme ' 
11th of December, at which time the conspirators, 
with the exception of Keyes, who remained at first at 
Lambeth, entered the house late at night. They had 
provided themselves with tools fit for making their 
excavation, and had taken with them a quantity of 
hard eggs, baked meats, and pasties, in order to avoid 
exciting suspicion by going frequently .abroad for pro¬ 
visions. They began their work immediately by carry- 
ing a mine up to the stone-wall which separated the 
house in which they were from the Parliament House. 

This wall proved to be three yards in thickness, and 
finding their undertaking to be one of much greater 
labour and difficulty than they had anticipated, they 
first sent for Keyes from Lambeth, and then enlisted 
into their party Christopher, John Wright’s brother, 
to assist at the work. “ All which seven,” says 
Fawkes,* “ were gentlemen of name and blood; and 
not any was employed in or about this action—no, not 
so much as in digging and mining—that was not a 
gentleman. And while the others wrought, I stood as 
sentinel to descry any man that came near; and when 

* Fawkes’s Examination, 8th November—State-Paper Office. 


48 ULTERIOR INTENTIONS OF CONSPIRATORS. 

any man came near to the place, upon warning given 
by me, they ceased until they had again notice from 
me to proceed; and we seven lay in the house, and 
had shot and powder, and we all resolved to die in that 
place before we yielded or were taken.” All day long 
they worked at the mine, carrying the earth and 
rubbish into a little building in the garden behind the 
house, and at night they removed it from the building 
into the garden, spreading it abroad, and covering it 
carefully over with turf. In this manner these deter¬ 
mined men worked without intermission until Christ- 
mas-eve ; and during the whole of that time not one of 
them showed himself in the upper part of the house, or 
was ever seen by the neighbours or passengers, except- 
ing Fawkes, who wore a porter’s frock over his clothes 
by way of disguise, and passed for a servant keeping 
the house for his master Percy. Their principal reason 
for keeping close was to avoid raising a suspicion (which 
if so many notorious Roman Catholics had been observed 
resorting to one house, would naturally have occurred) 
that they assembled there for religious purposes ; and 
in that case a diligent search might have been instituted 
for the priest, which would at once have discovered the 
scheme. 

discussion During their laborious employment at this time they 

operation. had much consultation respecting the plans to be 
adopted after the destructive project had taken effect. 
All the parties who were subsequently examined 
declared, that it was the intention to have proclaimed 
one of the royal family as king. Prince Henry they 


DISCUSSION RESPECTING WARNING CATHOLIC PEERS. 49 

concluded would accompany the King to the Parliament 
House, and perish there with his father. The Duke of 
York, afterwards Charles I., would then be the next 
heir, and Percy undertook to secure his person, and 
carry him off in safety as soon as the fatal blow was 
struck. If this scheme should fail, the princess 
Elizabeth, who was under the care of Lord Harrington, 
at his house near Coventry, might be easily surprised 
and secured by a party to be provided in the country. 
At all events, it was arranged that Warwickshire should 
be the general rendezvous, and .that supplies of horses 
and armour should be sent to the houses of several of 
the conspirators in that county, to be used as occasion 
might require. ^ 

They had at this time many Jtisou^sJWis respecting 
the particular Lords whose lives should be saved by 
warning them to absent themselves from the first meet¬ 
ing of the parliament. -Upon this subject there was 
always a difference of opinion amongst them; in conse¬ 
quence of which, no particulars were then settled, 
though it was understood generally that all who were 
Catholics, or disposed to favour Catholics, should, by 
some means or other, be saved. They also often dis¬ 
cussed the propriety of communicating with Roman 
Catholic Governments abroad; but the majority appear 
to have determined not to disclose the scheme to any 
foreign princes, as they could not be bound by an oath 
of secrecy, and therefore might betray the project if they 
disapproved of it. Father Greenway says, that they 
“ decided not to disclose the particulars of their design 


Question of 
notice to 
Catholic 
Lords. 


D 


50 


ADDITIONAL CONSPIRATORS SWORN. 


Prorogation 
of Parlia¬ 
ment on 7th 
of February, 
to 3rd of 
October. 


to the Pope, Clement VIII., because they knew that 
his holiness expected relief for the Catholics from nego¬ 
tiation with James, for whom he had a paternal regard, 
and of whom he was induced to hope much by the infor¬ 
mation of persons who did not understand the King’s real 
character; and that he had with this view enjoined all who 
acknowledged his jurisdiction in England, to abstain 
from acts of violence and await the result with patience.” 

In the midst of their deliberations on these points, 
Fawkes brought intelligence that the Parliament had 
been again prorogued from the 7 th of February to the 
3rd of October following. This information gave the 
conspirators satisfaction, as it allowed them abundance 
of time to mature the details of their plan, and to 
obtain some additions to their number. They agreed, 
therefore, to separate till after the Christmas holidays, 
and then to meet and renew their toilsome occupation. 
It was suggested that the interval should be spent by 
each in his ordinary mode of life; and that in order 
to avoid suspicion, they should associate together as 
little as possible, and that, above all, no written com¬ 
munication should take place between them upon the 
subject of the plot. Previously to their temporary 
separation, however, permission was given to Catesby 
and Percy, # at any time, with the consent of one of 
the other conspirators, to communicate the secret to 
such persons as they thought fit to be intrusted with 
it; Catesby saying, 44 that many might be willing that 
he should know of their privity, who would not con¬ 
sent that their names should be given to all the com- 


ACCOUNT OF JOHN GRANT. 51 

pany.” Under this understanding, John Grant, of 
Norbrook, near Warwick, and Kobert Winter, of 
Huddington, were sent lor to Oxford, by Catesby, in 
the month of January, 1604-5, and after having taken 
the oath of secrecy in the presence of Catesby and 
Thomas Winter, were informed of the lull particulars 
of the plot and admitted as confederates.* 

John Grant was descended from a Worcestershire 
family, of whom lew memorials are extant. His an¬ 
cestors are described in several pedigrees, as of Salt- 
marsh in Worcestershire, and of Snitterfield in 
Warwickshire. The latter designation is, no doubt, 
to be referred to his residence at Norbrook, which 
immediately adjoined Snitterfield, though it is not 
now considered to be locally situate within that parish. 
The mansion-house of the Grants at Norbrook was 
conveniently placed for the purposes of the conspirators, 
being in the centre of their proposed rendezvous, and 
of the most populous part of Warwickshire, between 
the towns of Warwick and Stratford-on-Avon. It was 
walled and moated, and well calculated, from its great 
extent, for the reception of horses and ammunition. 
At the present day little remains of it but its name : 
some fragments of massive stone walls are, however, 
still to be found, and the line of the moat may be dis¬ 
tinctly traced; an ancient hall of large dimensions is 
also apparent among the partitions and disfigurations ol 
a modern farmer’s kitchen. The identity of the house 

* Robert Winter’s Examination, 17th January, 1604-5; Thomas 
Winter’s Examination, same date.—State-Paper Office. 

D 2 


John Grant. 


52 


ACCOUNT OF ROBERT WINTER. 


Robert 

Winter. 


is fixed, not only by its name and local situation, but 
by a continuing tradition, that this was the residence 
of* one of the gunpowder conspirators ; and still more 
conclusively by the circumstance, that an old part of 
the building, which was taken down a few years ago, 
was known by the name of the Powder Room. John 
Grant is described by Greenway as a man of accom¬ 
plished manners, but of a melancholy and taciturn 
disposition: he had married a sister of the Winters of 
Huddington, and at the time of the Gunpowder Plot 
had several brothers, some of whom were involved 
with him in the conspiracy. He was a zealous Roman 
Catholic, and had been subject to persecution for his 
religion in the reign of Elizabeth. He was also impli¬ 
cated in the Essex insurrection, and was fined for his 
share in that transaction.* 

Robert Winter was the eldest brother of Thomas 
Winter, of whose family and connexions we have 
already given an account. He resided at Huddington, 
and was in possession of the family estate : he was a 
firm Roman Catholic, and had married the daughter of 
John 1 abbot, of Grafton, a Roman Catholic gentleman 
of great wealth and influence in the county of Wor¬ 
cester. At the first communication of the plot to him, 
Robert Winter hesitated,f and expressed surprise that 
Catesby should attempt so dangerous a project, and 
one, as he suggested, so unlikely to succeed without 

* Tanner MSS., p. 76, Lodge’s Illustrations, vol. iii. p. 121. 

t Robert Winters Letter to tlie Lords, dated 21st January 
1605-6.—State-Paper Office. 


53 



v». 


THOMAS BATES SWORN. ! 




foreign aid, or the assistance of some great men at 
home; adding,- *£ that ’if the plot were discovered, as 
such things^ generally wer r e, it would scandalize all 
the Catholics in the King's opinion, and utterly ruin 
the lives and estates of all who were engaged in it.” 
Catesby affected to disclaim all expectation of foreign 
aid; saying, “ that the ambassadors of foreign princes 
had been in England, and had done nothing for Catho¬ 
lics ; nor had he any hopes from any of them. The 
state of the Catholics,” he said, “ was desperate, for 
he was well assured that, before the end of the Par¬ 
liament, such laws would be passed as would bring 
all of them within prasmunire at the least; and there¬ 
fore it was that he had resolved on that course.” With 
these suggestions Robert Winter was for the time 


satisfied; he did not, however, join the party in 
London until Easter, after the mine had been abandoned. 

About the same time, Thomas Bates, an old servant 
of Catesby, being supposed to have obtained a suspi¬ 
cion of the plot, from having been employed by his 
master about the house at Westminster, it was thought 
more prudent to make him a full accomplice, and to 
bind him by the oath of secrecy, than to leave him at 
liberty to make partial disclosures, which might lead to 
the overthrow of the whole undertaking. Father 
Greenway says, that “ he was a man of mean station, who 
had been much persecuted on account of religion.” The 
accession of this man to the conspiracy is important, 
not from the part which he acted in the plot itself’, 
which was subordinate and insignificant, but because he 


54 


THE BELL IN THE WALL. 


The working 
in the Mine, 


Incident of 
the Bell in 
the Wall. 


was the person who, by his statements after his appre¬ 
hension, first implicated the Jesuit priests in the 
transaction. 

By the beginning of February, the confederates, 
having resumed their labours, had, by great persever¬ 
ance and exertion, pierced about half through the 
stone wall. Father Greenway observes that “ it seemed 
almost incredible that men of their quality, accustomed 
to live in ease and delicacy, could have undergone such 
severe toil; and especially that, in a few weeks, they 
should have effected much more than as many work¬ 
men would have done, who had been all their lives in 
the habit of gaining their daily bread by their labour.” 
In particular, he remarks that “it was wonderful how 
Percy and Catesby, who were unusually tall men, 
could endure for so lono; a time the intense fatigue of 
working day and night in the stooping posture, which 
was rendered necessary by the straitness of the place.” 

Greenway relates an incident which occurred while 
they were at work, and which is perhaps worth re¬ 
peating, as evidence of the gross superstition which 
prevailed among these fanatics, and also as evincing the 
workings of conscience on the minds of the conspirators 
as they proceeded with their design. They were one 
day surprised by the sound of the tolling of a bell, 
which seemed to proceed from the middle of the wall 
under the Parliament House. All suspended their 
labour, and listened with alarm and uneasiness to the 
mysterious sound. Fawkes was sent for from his 
station above. The tolling still continued, and was 



THE COAL-CELLAR HIRED. 55 

distinctly heard by him as well as the others. Much 
wondering at this prodigy, they sprinkled the wall 
with holy water, when the sound instantly ceased. 
Upon this they resumed their labour, and after a s^iort 
time the tolling commenced again, and again was 
silenced by the application of holy water. This pro¬ 
cess was repeated frequently for several days, till at 
length the unearthly sound was heard no more. 

These ideal terrors were shortly after succeeded by 
another and more reasonable subject of uneasiness. 
One morning, while working upon the wall, they 
suddenly heard a rushing noise in a cellar, nearly above 
their heads. At first they imagined that they had 
been discovered; but Fawkes being despatched to re¬ 
connoitre, found that one Bright, to whom the cellar 
belonged, was selling off his coals in order to remove, 
and that the noise proceeded from this cause. Fawkes 
carefully surveyed the place, which proved to be a 
large vault, situated immediately below the House of 
Lords, and extremely convenient for the purpose they 
had in view. The difficulty of carrying the mine 
through the wall had lately very much increased. 
Besides the danger of discovery .from the heavy blows 
which it was necessary to strike in penetrating the 
stone foundations, they found that as the work ex¬ 
tended towards the river, the water began to flow in 
upon them, and not only impeded their progress, but 
showed that the mine would be an improper depository 
for the powder and combustibles. Finding that the 
cellar would shortly become vacant, the conspirators 


Hiring the 
Coal Cellar. 


56 APPLICATION FOR FOREIGN AID. 

agreed that it should be hired in Percy’s name, under 
the pretext that he wanted it for the reception of his 
own coals and wood. This was accordingly done, and 
immediate possession was obtained. The mine was 
abandoned, and about twenty barrels of powder were 
forthwith carried by night, across the river from 
Lambeth, and placed in the cellar in hampers; large 
stones, and the iron bars and other tools used by them 
in mining, were thrown into the barrels amongst the 
powder, the object of which Fawkes afterwards declared 
to be, to “ make the breach the greater and the whole 
was covered over with faggots and billets of wood. In 
order to complete the deception, they also placed a 
quantity of lumber and empty bottles in the cellar. 
The preparations were complete about the beginning of 
May, 1605. They then carefully closed the vault, 
having first placed certain marks about the door inside, 
by which they might at any time ascertain whether it 
had been entered in their absence; and as the Parlia¬ 
ment was not to meet till the 3rd of October, they 
agreed to separate for some months, in order to avoid 
the suspicion which might arise from their being seen 
together in London, 

Before their separation, Catesby proposed that an 
attempt should be made to obtain foreign countenance 
and co-operation, by informing Sir William Stanley 
and Owen of the project. This was agreed to, on 
condition of their being sworn to secrecy, and Fawkes 

# Fawkes’s Examination, 5th November, 1605. — State-Paper 
Office. 


PROSECUTION OF RECUSANTS CONTINUED. 


57 


was despatched into Flanders shortly before Easter, lor 
the purpose of conferring with them. He returned 
about the latter end of August, without having seen 
Sir William Stanley, who was in Spain: he conferred, 
however, with Owen, who told him that, from the 
relation which then subsisted between England and 
Spain, Sir William Stanley was not likely to promote 
the scheme, but that he himself would undertake to 
communicate the particulars to him as soon as it was 
put in execution.* 

In the meantime the prosecution of recusants con¬ 
tinued ; and the occurrence of certain tumultuous meet¬ 
ings of Roman Catholics in Herefordshire and Wales 
in the summer of 1605 was used as a pretext for 
increased rigour. Previously to the assizes the King 
called together the Judges, and “gave them a very 
straight charge to be diligent and severe in their 
circuits against recusants, and to execute the laws in 
that behalf made.”-}* He Beaumont the French ambas¬ 
sador, in a letter to Villeroy, dated the 9th of July, 
1605, also states this fact, and adds:—“ The King 
treats the Catholics with greater rigour than ever ; 
and I foresee that their condition will become daily 
worse. All of them, as well those of the Jesuit faction 
as the secular priests, feel that they have been 
grievously deceived heretofore, and that they have 
been very little comforted or assisted by what the 
King of Spain has done.” In a subsequent letter, 

* Thomas Winter’s Examination, 17th November, 1605.—State- 
Paper Office. 

f Winwood’s Memorials, vol. ii. p. 77. 

D 3 


58 


MISSION OF SIR E. BAYNHAM TO ROME. 


Sir Edmund 
Baynham 
despatched 
to Rome. 


dated September 17, 1605, De Beaumont says that the 
King of England, in a visit to the University of Oxford, 
expressly exhorted the young men to “ avoid and abhor 
to the utmost of their power, Romanas Superstitiones; 
and following his example to hold fast to the true faith 
and religion of the Church which he professed, and had 
sworn that he would profess to the end of his life.”* 

In the early part of September the conspirators 
despatched Sir Edmund Baynham on a mission to the 
Pope. Baynham was a Catholic gentleman of good 
family in Gloucestershire, but of profligate and tur¬ 
bulent habits. Besides being engaged in Essex’s 
rebellion, he had been more than once prosecuted in 
the Star-Chamber, in the time of Elizabeth, for riots 
and affrays, and was known as the captain of a club or 
society called the “ Damned Crew,” which was one 
of those associations of adversaries of law and order, 
which are described by contemporaneous historians 
as prevalent in London in the early part of the 
reign of James I.f Dc Beaumont, the French ambas¬ 
sador, in a letter, dated only four days after Queen 
Elizabeth’s death, states that Baynham had been im¬ 
prisoned by the Lords of the Council for declaring 
“ that the King of Scotland was schismatic, and that 
he would not acknowledge him as Kinar.” ± 

* De Beaumont’s Depeclies. 

f “ Divers sects of vitious persons, going under tlie title of Boring 
Boys, Bravadoes, Koysterers, &c., commit many insolencies. The 
streets swarm night and day with bloody quarrels.” — Wilson’s 
History of Great Britain, p. 28. 

X Depeclies, 28 March, 1603. 


PARLIAMENT AGAIN PROROGUED. 


59 


Baynham was intimate with Catesby, and several 
other conspirators, but it is doubtful whether he was in 
the first instance intrusted with the secret of* the plot. 
None of the persons examined mention him as one of* 
the sworn conspirators; and Thomas Winter expressly 
says that “ he was not a man fit for the business at 
home; but that they had otherwise employed him by 
sending him to Borne.”* He was sent to Borne at this 
time, in order that he might be there when the news 
of the explosion arrived, and be prepared to negotiate 
with the Pope on behalf of the conspirators, and to 
explain to him their designs respecting the establishment 
of the Bornan Catholic religion in England. This mission 
of Sir Edmund Baynham will be more particularly 
noticed hereafter, as the circumstances which attended 
it formed very strong evidence of Father Garnet’s 
criminal implication in the plot. 

Soon after Fawkes’s return from Flanders, the Par¬ 
liament was further prorogued from the 3rd of October 
till the 5th of November. These repeated proro¬ 
gations alarmed the conspirators, and led them to fear 
that their project was suspected, if not discovered. 
Thomas Winter was therefore sent to observe the 
demeanour and countenances of the commissioners by 
whom the parliament was prorogued, with the cus¬ 
tomary solemnities. Being a retainer in the house¬ 
hold of Lord Mounteagle, who was one of the com¬ 
missioners, his attendance upon his lordship furnished 


Further pro¬ 
rogation till 
November 5. 


* Examination of Thomas Bates, 13th January, 1G05-G.—State- 
Paper Office. Criminal Trials, vol. ii. p. 2S2. 


60 


CATESBY PREPARES AN ARMED FORCE. 


Catesby’s 
preparations 
of an armed 
force. 


him with the means of being present at the ceremony.* 
He observed no indications of suspicion or alarm, and 
nothing hasty or unusual in the form and conduct of 
the proceeding. The commissioners, amongst whom 
were the Earls of Salisbury and Suffolk, carelessly 
conversed and walked about in the House of Lords, 
evidently unconscious of the volcano which lay pre¬ 
pared beneath their feet, and which only required a 
spark of fire to involve them in instant destruction. 
This apparent absence of all uneasiness and suspicion 
quieted the fears of the conspirators, and induced them 
to conclude that their secret was still safe.f 

From the commencement of the conspiracy Catesby 
had been aware of the expediency of being prepared 
with some disposable military force to meet any 
resistance which might be raised by the government or 
Protestants after the fatal explosion had taken place. 
For this purpose, horses, arms, powder, and other 
ammunition were purchased and distributed in the 
houses of various conspirators in the midland counties, 
but principally at his mother’s house at Ashby St. 
Legers, and at that of John Grant at Norbrook. This 
could not be done secretly, and therefore to give a 
colour to these warlike preparations, Catesby took great 
pains to inform all his friends and acquaintance that 
he was about to raise a troop of three hundred horse, 
to join the English regiment which the Spanish 
Ambassador had raised by levies in England, and a 

# Thomas Winter’s Examination, 12tli November, 1605. 

f Greenway's MS. 


THE NUMBER OF CONSPIRATORS INCREASED. 


61 


detachment of which had already been despatched to 
Flanders for the service of the Archduke.* Upon this, 
many enterprising and discontented gentlemen offered to 
join him as volunteers, and to advance money and horses 
for the undertaking. Catesby at once perceived the 
advantage which he should gain for his real object by 
accepting these offers, and thus placing himself, and 
such other commanders as he could trust, at the head 
of a military force, to be afterwards employed for his 
own purposes as circumstances might require. In this 
manner, therefore, he employed the summer of 1605 
in collecting together a great number of gentlemen, all 
armed and equipped; directing them to be ready for 
service at the shortest notice. He selected his officers 
from his most approved and confidential friends, and 
cautiously introduced amongst them several of the 
sworn conspirators in the Gunpowder Plot.f The 
government subsequently obtained express information 
that it was part of the plan of the conspirators, that 
the whole of this English regiment should be brought 
over into England in aid of the Roman Catholic party, 
after the execution of'the Plot.J 

Shortly before Michaelmas, 1605, Percy and Catesby 
met by appointment at Bath ; and it was then arranged 

# The Spanish Ambassador had prevailed upon the King to 
permit these levies to be made in England for service in Flanders; 
and under them Roman Catholics were almost exclusively chosen. 
The first proposition was that they should be commanded by Sir 
Charles Percy, brother of the Earl of Northumberland, but he 
declined the duty, and the charge was then given to the young 
Lord Arundel of Wardour. See Beaumont’s Depeches. 

f Greenway s MS. X Birch’s Negociations, p. 251. 


Three other 
persons in¬ 
troduced to 
the Plot. 


62 


SIR EVERARD DIGBY. 


Sir Everard 
Digby. 


that two or three persons of wealth should he added to 
the secret confederacy, in order to provide means for 
raising further supplies of horses and ammunition. 
For this purpose three Roman Catholic gentlemen, 
Sir Everard Digby, Ambrose Rookwood, and Francis 
Tresham, the two first intimate friends, and the last a 
near relation of Cates ay, were selected. 

Sir Everard Digby, of Tilton and Drystoke, in 
Rutlandshire, belonged to an ancient and honourable 
family, distinguished during several generations for 
their wealth and loyalty. He was born in 1581, and 
therefore at the time of the Powder Plot was only 
twenty-four years of age. He had lost his father in 
his childhood, and while in wardship to Queen Eliza¬ 
beth appears to have been favourably noticed at court. 
In the year 1596 he married the only daughter and 
heiress of the family of Moulsoe or Mulsho, of Goat- 
hurst, in Buckinghamshire; whose parents dying soon 
after the marriage, a large estate descended to Sir 
Everard in right of his wife. He had two sons; the 
eldest of whom was the celebrated Sir Kenelm Digby. 
Sir Everard had been knighted by James I. at Bel voir 
Castle, on his journey from Scotland to London, upon 
his accession to the crown of England. Greenway 
says, that though his father was a Roman Catholic, 
Sir Everard had been brought up during his minority 
in a Protestant house; and though always much 
inclined to the ancient religion, did not openly profess 
it until he had arrived at an age when he had the 
entire disposal of himself. “ And notwithstanding ” 

O * 


SIR EVERARD DIGBY. 


03 


says Greenway, whose descriptions of the conspirators 
are sufficiently high-flown, “ that until his majority he 
had dwelt much in the Queen’s court, and was in the 
way of obtaining honours and distinction by his grace¬ 
ful manners and rare parts, he chose rather to bear the 
cross with the persecuted Catholics, et vivere abjectus in 
domo Domini, than to sail through the pleasures of a 
palace and the prosperities of the world, to the ship¬ 
wreck of his conscience and the destruction of his soul.” 
By the same partial writer Sir Everard Digby is 
described as “ old in prudence, though young in years, 
possessing many accomplishments, a profound judg¬ 
ment, and a great and brilliant understanding.” It 
must be confessed, that neither his conduct nor his 
letters justify this panegyric. He appears through¬ 
out this transaction as a weak and bigoted young man, 
never acting upon his own judgment or impulses, but 
submitting himself entirely to the control and guidance 
of the Jesuits. 

The secret was communicated by Catesby to Sir 
Everard Digby about Michaelmas, 1605, the oath of 
secrecy having been previously given to him. He 
says, in one of his examinations,* that “ upon the first 
breaking of it to him, he showed much dislike, but 
forbore to reveal it, upon scruple of conscience in 
respect of his oath.” By his Letters, however, first 
published in 1678, at the end of the Bishop of Lincoln’s 
republication of the “ Account of the Gunpowder Plot,” 
it clearly appears that he cordially joined in the project 
* 20th November, 1G05.—State-Paper Office. 


04 


AMBROSE ROOKWOOD. 


Ambrose 

Rookwood. 


from religious zeal, as soon as he had satisfied himself 
that the action had been approved by his spiritual 
advisers. Sir Everard Digby agreed to contribute to 
the cause 1,500£. in money, and a quantity of horses, 
arms, and ammunition. 

Ambrose Rookwood, of Coldham Hall, in Stan- 
ningfield, Suffilk, was an extremely interesting cha¬ 
racter in the history of this conspiracy. He was the 
descendant, and at this time the head, of one of the 
most ancient and opulent families in the kingdom. 
His ancestors had been in possession of the manor of 
Stanningfield, which at the present day continues 
vested in their lineal descendants, from the time of 
Edward I., and they had repeatedly represented the 
county of Suffolk in Parliament. At the Reforma¬ 
tion the Rookwoods adhered to the ancient religion ; 
and several of them afterwards experienced the rigour 
of Protestant persecution; one instance of which, in 
the case of Edward Rookwoood, of Euston Hall, we 
have already related. Ambrose Rookwood was born 
of Roman Catholic parents, and carefully brought up 
from his childhood in the Roman Catholic faith. He 
had received his education at one of the Roman 
Catholic universities in Flanders, and when he suc¬ 
ceeded to his inheritance upon his father’s death in 
1600, his house in Suffolk became, as it had been in his 
father’s time, a common asylum for persecuted priests, 
and mass was constantly performed there; in conse¬ 
quence of which he was subjected to repeated prosecu¬ 
tions and penalties. It is remarkable that he had been 


AMBROSE ROOK WOOD. 


65 


indicted for recusancy at the London and Middlesex 
Sessions, in February 1604-5, after the Gunpowder 
Plot had been contrived and arranged.* He married 
a daughter of Sir William Tyrwhit, of Kettleby, in 
Lincolnshire, by whom he had two or three children. 
He possessed an ample estate, and was especially 
remarkable for his stud of line horses; a circumstance 
which made him a particularly desirable acquisition to 
the Conspirators. At the period of which we are 
speaking he was twenty-seven years of age. He had 
been long the intimate friend of Catesby, whom, he 
says,t “he loved and respected as his own life;” and 
attachment to him, and the contagion of religious 
enthusiasm, drew Rookwood from the bosom of his 
family, and bound him to this rash and desperate 
conspiracy. 

Being in London about Michaelmas, 1605, Catesby 
told him that “ for the ancient love he had borne 
unto him, he would impart a matter of importance 
unto himand then, after administering the oath of 
secrecy, he revealed to him the design of blowing up 
the King and the Parliament House with powder. 
Rookwood states that he was “ somewhat amazed ” at 
the proposal; and asked, “ how such as were Catholics 
and divers other friends should be preserved ?” Catesby 
answered, that “ a trick should be put upon them.” 
Then Rookwood objected that “ it was a matter of 
conscience to take away so much blood.” But Catesby 

* Ecclesiastical Papers, No. 53, State-Paper Office. 

f Examination of December 2nd, 1605.—State-Paper Office. 


Francis 

Tresham. 


63 FRANCIS TRESHAM. 

assured him, that “he might be satisfied on that 
head, for that though he had not put that case in 
particular to any, he had put the like case, and 
had been resolved by good authority that in conscience 
it might be done.” Rook wood still expressing 
scruples of conscience respecting the lawfulness of 
the action, Catesby told him “ that he had also asked 
advice, whether, if the act could not be done without 
the destruction of some innocents, it might still be 
done, and was resolved that rather than the action 
should fail they must also suffer as the rest did.” By 
these assurances Rookwood’s scruples were quieted; 
and, by Catesby’s advice, he immediately removed 
with his family to a house belonging to Lord Carew, 
at Clopton, near Stratford-on-Avon, in Warwickshire, 
in order that lie might be near the general rendezvous.* 

The third person who was taken into the confederacy 
at this time was Francis Tresham, the eldest son and 
heir of Sir Thomas Tresham, whom we have already 
mentioned as having, in the reign of Elizabeth, 
suffered severely for the sake of religion. The 
mothers of Francis Tresham and Robert Catesby, were 
sisters, both of them being daughters of Sir Robert 
Throckmorton of Congleton. The two families, being 
near neighbours and zealous Roman Catholics, and under 
frequent prosecution for recusancy, lived together in 
the strictest intimacy; and the younger branches, 
being nurtured amidst religious persecution, were in- 

* Rookwood’s Examination, 2nd December, 1605.—State-Paper 
Office. 


FRANCIS TRESHAM. 


67 


• 

fected in no small measure with disaffection to the 
Protestant Government. Francis Tresham is said to 
have been educated, as Catesby was, at Gloucester Hall, 
Oxford, now called Worcester College.* His father 
died in September 1605, and upon bis death Francis 
Tresham succeeded to a large estate at Rush ton, near 
Kettering, in Northamptonshire. He had been en¬ 
gaged in several plots in the preceding reign, and was 
extremely active in the Earl of Essex’s rebellion; and 
when that nobleman imprisoned the Lord Keeper, the 
Lord Chief Justice, the Earl of Worcester, and Sir 
William Ivnollys in Essex House, Tresham was one of 
those appointed to guard them ; and it was he who 
insolently told the Lord Keeper that “ he had stayed 
two years for a motion in the Chancery, and hoped His 
lordship was now at good leisure to hear him.”f The 
strong representation made by the Lord Chief Justice 
of the insolence of his conduct on this occasion highly 
exasperated the Queen and Council against him, and 
notwithstanding the greatest exertions were made on 
his behalf, it remained for some time doubtful whether 
he would not have been arraigned and executed with 
the other commoners implicated in that conspiracy. 
At length, and only the day before the arraignment of 
Sir Gilly Merrick and his companions, Tresham re¬ 
ceived his discharge, in consequence of the powerful 
interest exerted for him by Lady Catherine Howard, 
daughter of Lord Thomas Howard, Lieutenant of the 

* Wood’s Ath. Oxon., vol. i. p. 754. Edit. Bliss. 

f Criminal Trials, vol. i. p. 326. 

% 


03 


DOUBTS OF HIS SINCERITY. 


Tower, and afterwards Earl of Suffolk.* The exertion 
of this interest in his favour was, however, only ob¬ 
tained at a pecuniary expense of several thousand 
pounds, which reduced his father, Sir Thomas Tresham, 
to difficulty, and, as he himself says, to “ penury ” for 
the remainder of his days. Notwithstanding this 
narrow escape, he became engaged w T ith Catesby, 
Thomas Winter, and others, in the treasonable corre¬ 
spondence which took place between the English 
Roman Catholics and the King of Spain shortly before 
the death of Elizabeth. 

The particulars of the communication of the plot to 
Tresham are unknown. He at first agreed to it 
cordially, and undertook to furnish 2,000/. towards the 

* In the Rushton Papers there is a complete account of the mode 
in which Francis Tresham’s exemption from prosecution for his 
share in the Earl of Essex’s rebellion was effected. It appears to 
have been a transaction of bargain and sale managed with great 
adroitness and ingenuity. His father, Sir Thomas Tresham, entered 
into bonds for the payment of large sums of money at the end of 
three months to a trustee for the “ honourable persons ” who were 
to procure the Queen’s mercy : in one instance the bond appeared to 
have been for 2,100/., and there were several bonds for 1,000/., each. 
The trustee then executed a sort of declaration of trust, in which, 
after reciting the bonds, and that “ they had a reference to a matter 
to be performed by a third party not expressed in them,” he under¬ 
takes, if that matter be not performed before the bonds became due, 
to re-deliver them to the parties bound. The ultimate result was, as 
appears from the Council Minutes of July 6th and August 6th, 1601, 
that Tresham was released upon payment of a fine of 2,000/. to the 
Queen, 1,500/. of which was to be paid to Lord Thomas Howard, the 
father of the lady who had been bribed to intercede for his life. 
Whether this fine of 2,000/. was imposed in addition to the amount 
paid for the intercession does not certainly appear. The same 
Minutes of Council show the appropriation of 1,200/. out of Catesby’s 
fine to Sir Francis Bacon. See Council Register, July and August, 
1601. 


STEPHEN AND HUMPHREY LITTLETON. 69 

promotion of the scheme; but his sinceri ty seems to 
have been always suspected by some of the con¬ 
spirators ; and probably nothing but the temptation of 
the great wealth of which he had lately become pos¬ 
sessed upon his father’s death, and his devotion to the 
Roman Catholic religion, would have induced them to 
consent to his reception amongst them. He was 
known to be mean, treacherous, and unprincipled ; and 
his character must have been fully understood by 
Catesby, who was not only his near relation, but had 
been brought up with him, and had been engaged with 
him in several treasonable conspiracies. Father Green¬ 
way states that Catesby afterwards repented that he 
had admitted Tresham into the confederacy ; that he 
always mistrusted him, and that from the time of his 
introduction, fearful forebodings and incessant anxiety, 
excited and supported by ominous dreams portending 
the failure of the scheme, took possession of Catesby’s 
mind. 

Besides these three gentlemen, who were intrusted 
with the whole detail of the plot, and sworn to secrecy, 
means were taken to insure the active co-operation 
of other persons of wealth and influence as soon as tRe 
* first act of the tragedy had been performed. With 
this view, Catesby went from Bath to Huddington on a 
visit to Robert Winter; and from thence he sent for 
Stephen and Humphrey Littleton, with the view °f Humphrey' 1 
eventually engaging them in the confederacy. The Llttleton - 
Littletons belonged to the distinguished family of that 
name, who for several centuries have possessed large 


70 THE SCHEME ONLY PARTIALLY OPENED TO THEM. 

estates in the counties of Worcester and Stafford, and 
who from the time of the great judge, who composed 
the celebrated Book of Tenures in the reign of Edward 
IV., until the present day, have continuously reckoned 
among their members persons as eminent for virtue 
and talents as any that this kingdom has produced. 
Stephen Littleton was the eldest son and heir of 
George Littleton of Holbeach, in the county of Staf¬ 
ford, who was the third son of Sir John Littleton of 
Hagley, and who died previously to the period of the 
Gunpowder Plot. In 1605, Stephen Littleton was the 
possessor of Holbeach and resided there. Holbeach 
was a large house, handsomely built in the style of archi¬ 
tecture usual in the time of Queen Elizabeth, and was 
situated about four miles from Stourbridge on the road 
between that place and Wolverhampton.* Humphrey 
Littleton was a younger son of Gilbert Littleton, eldest 
son and heir of Sir John Littleton, of Hagley, and was, 
consequently, cousin to Stephen Littleton.f 

It appears from the evidence that Catesby did not 
at that time acquaint the Littletons with the whole 
project he had in view ; but he informed them of his 
proposed expedition to join the Archduke with a troop 

* Holbeacli House was standing a few years ago, and is described 
in Shaw’s History of Staffordshire, vol. ii. p. 297, but at the present 
day no traces of this once stately mansion are discernible, except 
some ancient walls which form paid of the buildings belonging to 
a mill. 

f Humphrey Littleton calls Stephen Littleton his “cousin- 
german.” See Humphrey Littleton's Relation, 26th January, 1606. 
Add. MSS. in the British Museum, No. 6178, p. 697. 


THEY ARE INVITED TO THE RENDEZVOUS. 71 

of three hundred English horse in Flanders. He 
promised to give Stephen Littleton the command of a 
company, and offered to take over with him a natural 
son of Humphrey Littleton as his page. He invited 
both the Littletons to meet him at Dunchurch, at 
which place he proposed to make merry with his 
friends some three or four days, and undertook to give 
them due notice of the day of meeting through Robert 
Winter; adding, that at Dunchurch he would appoint, 
the time, and make the necessary arrangements with 
them for the campaign in Flanders.* 

* Robert Winter’s Letter to the Lords, 21st January, 1605—State- 
Paper Office. 


72 


PLAN OF OPERATIONS ARRANGED. 


Details of the 
Plan ar¬ 
ranged. 


CHAPTER III. 

Plan of operations arranged — Renewed discussions respecting 
warning friends—Tresliam’s anxiety respecting Lord Mounteagle 
—Probability that warnings were given by individual conspirators 
—Account of Lord Mounteagle—His implication with Catesby, 
Tresham, and the Wrights in previous plots—Changes his course 
on the accession of James I.—The letter of warning to Lord 
Mounteagle—Conjectures respecting its author—Mrs. Abington— 
Anne Yaux—Thomas Percy—Tresham probably the betrayer— 
Suggestion that Mounteagle was privy to the Plot — Doubts 
whether the letter was the first notice of the Plot given to 
Mounteagle—Tresham’s scheme—Its failure in consequence of 
the infatuation of the conspirators—Lord Mounteagle takes the 
letter to the Earl of Shrewsbury. 

The day of the meeting of Parliament now approached ; 
and as no further prorogation was expected, it became 
necessary for the conspirators finally to arrange their 
plan. For this purpose they had frequent consultations, 
in the course of which the following points were deter¬ 
mined upon :—First, that Fawkes, as a man of ap¬ 
proved courage and of experience in emergencies, 
should be intrusted to set fire to the mine. This he 
was to do by means of a slow-burning match, which 
would allow him full a quarter of an hour for his 
escape before the explosion took place. He was in¬ 
stantly to embark on board a vessel in the river, and to 
proceed to Flanders with the intelligence of what had 


DISCUSSION RESPECTING WARNING FRIENDS. 73 

been done. Secondly, Sir Everard Digby was to 
assemble a number of Roman Catholic gentleman on 
the 5th of November, at Dunchurch, in Warwickshire, 
under the pretence of hunting on Dunsmoor Heath; 
from which place, as soon as they received notice that 
the blow was struck, a party was to be despatched to 
seize the Princess Elizabeth at the house of Lord 
Harrington, near Coventry. The princess was to be 
immediately proclaimed Queen, in case of a failure in 
securing the person of the Prince of Wales or the 
young Duke of York, and a regent was to be appointed 
during the minority of the new sovereign. Having 
secured and proclaimed the princess, Catesby proposed 
that they should seize the horses at Warwick Castle, 
and the store of armour belonging to Lord Windsor, at 
Whewell Grange, in Worcestershire; “ and by that 
time,” said he, “ I hope some friends will ceme and 
take our parts.”* Thirdly, Percy was to seize the 
Prince of Wales, or, if he should be in the Parliament 
House with the King, he was to take possession of the 
Duke of York in the palace, to which he would have 
ready access by means of his office of gentleman- 
pensioner : he might do this under the pretext of 
securing his person from danger, and then taking him 
to a carriage prepared for the purpose, he was to carry 
him with all speed to Dunchurch. 

One subject of discussion arose at this period, which 
had occasioned from the beginning much difference of 

* Robert Winter’s Letter to the Lords, 21st January, 1605.— 
State-Paper Office. 


Discussion 

respecting 

warning 

friends. 


74 DISCUSSION RESPECTING WARNING FRIENDS. 

opinion. This was the arrangement of a list of those 
peers who should be saved by a timely warning from 
the intended destruction. Several of the conspirators 
whose consciences did not disapprove the proposition of 
taking away the lives of the King and of the enemies 
and oppressors of their religion, hesitated to involve in 
the same indiscriminate fate those who were Roman 
Catholics themselves, who were firm and zealous 
friends of the Roman Catholic cause, and many of 
whom had been actively associated with themselves in 
former attempts against the Protestant Government. 
Others, again, had friends and near relations amongst 
those who were thus doomed to destruction ; the Lords 
Stourton and Mounteagle, both Roman Catholics, had 
married sisters of Tresliam, and he was on terms of 
daily and familiar intercourse with both of them. 
Tresham, therefore, was “exceeding earnest” that 
these two lords, and especially the latter, should have 
some warning given them, to induce them to absent 
themselves from the Parliament. Robert Keyes was 
not less urgent lor his friend and patron Lord Mor- 
daunt; and Fawkes mentioned Lord Montague and 
some others. Percy also pressed that the Earl of 
Northumberland and Lord Mounteagle should be saved ; 
and all were anxious, if possible, to warn the young 
Lord Arundel, who, though under age, had petitioned 
to be summoned to Parliament. On the other hand, it 
was strongly urged by Catesby and Thomas Winter, 
that, by increasing the number of confederates, they 
would incalculably increase the risk of discovery and 


DISCUSSION RESPECTING WARNING FRIENDS. 


75 


prevention; and that a significant hint to individuals 
to absent themselves would be even more dangerous 
than a full communication of the design, as it would 
excite a vague suspicion and alarm without any obliga¬ 
tion to secresy. Catesby spoke contemptuously of the 
lords in general, and declared that “ he made account 
of the nobility as of atheists, fools, and cowards, and 
that lusty bodies would be better for the commonwealth 
than they.”* In order, however, to allay the anxieties 
of those who had relations and friends in this dangerous 
predicament, he assured them that he had already 
ascertained that several of the Roman Catholic peers 
would not be present at the meeting of Parliament; 
that he had spoken with Lord Montague, and had per¬ 
suaded him to make suit to be absent from the 
Parliament altogether, on the ground that his single 
voice would not avail against the making of more penal 
laws against the Roman Catholics. With respect to 
Lord Mordaunt, he declared that “ he would not for 
the chamber full of diamonds acquaint him with the 
secret, for that he knew that he could not keep it 
but that he was assured that his lordship would not take 
his seat until the middle of the Parliament, “ because 
he objected to sitting in his robes in the Parliament 
House while the King was at church.” He also de¬ 
clared that he had good reason to believe that Lord 
Stourton would not come to town till the Friday after 
the meeting of Parliament. “ Assure yourself,” said 
he to Sir Everard Digby, “ that such of the nobility as 
* Keyes’s Examination, 30tli November, 1G05.—State-Paper Office. 

E 2 


Tresliam’s 

anxiety. 


76 TRESHAM’S ANXIETY RESPECTING LORD MOUNTEAGLE. 

are worth saving shall be preserved, and yet know not 
of the matter.”* He declared generally to the con¬ 
federates that he wished, as much as any of them could 
do, that “ all the nobles that were Catholics might be 
preserved, and that tricks should be put upon them to 
that endbut, said he, “ with all that, rather than 
the project should not take effect, if they were as dear 
unto me as mine own son, they also must be blown 
up.”t Upon these suggestions it was concluded by 
a majority of the conspirators that no express notice 
should be given, but that individuals should persuade 
their friends, upon general grounds, to absent them¬ 
selves, and particularly by urging the little good that 
so small a party could do in resisting the disposition of 
the Government, and of a large majority of both Houses 
of Parliament, to inflict more severe restrictions upon 
the Roman Catholics. 

To Tresham this appeared to be too slender a thread 
to rely upon. He afterwards unexpectedly joined 
Catesby, Thomas Winter, and Fawkes, at White 
Webbs, and again passionately required that warning 
should be given to Lord Mounteagle. Fawkes declares 
that Catesby and Thomas Winter “ had some conten¬ 
tion with Tresham about the Lord Mounteagle, Tresham 
having been exceeding earnest to have his lordship 
warned to be absent from the Parliament.”! Upon 


* Digby’s Examination, 2nd December, 1605.—State-Paper Office, 
f Keyes’s Examination, 30th November, 1605.—State-Paper Office. 
X Fawkes’s Examination, 16th November, 1605. State-Paper 
Office. In another examination Fawkes says, “ We durst not fore- 


PROBABILITY THAT WARNINGS WERE GIVEN. 77 

their hesitating to comply with his demand, Tresham 
hinted that he should not be prepared with the money 
he had agreed to advance until he had sold some 
estates, and suggested that it would be better to defer 
the execution of the Plot till the closing of the Parlia¬ 
ment, and that the conspirators might spend the 
interval in Flanders.* Tresham himself declared, after 
his apprehension, that his object in this advice was to 
get rid of the Plot altogether: “ This,” says he, “ was 
the only way that I could resolve on to overthrow the 
action, to save their lives, and to preserve my own 
fortunes, life, and reputation.”-]* From this time he 
appears to have taken no part in the consultations; 
and when # the principal conspirators afterwards fled 
into the country, he remained at his usual place 
of abode in London, and showed himself unre¬ 
servedly in the streets. J Having failed to convert 
his confederates to his wishes respecting Lord 
Mounteagle, he probably determined, without further 
consultation with them, to give his friends express 
advertisement of their danger in his own way. It 
is reasonable to suppose that other conspirators did the 
same thing by their particular friends; indeed, Sir 
Everard Higby says, in a letter to his wife,§ written 

warn them for fear we should he discovered; we meant principally 
to have respected our own safety, and would have prayed for them.” 

* Greenway’s MS., and Tresham’s Declaration, 13th November.— 
State-Paper Office. 

f Tresham’s Declaration, 13th November.—State-Paper Office. 

+ IMS. Letter from Sir Edward Hoby to Sir Thomas Edmondes. 

§ Gunpowder Treason, p. 251. 



78 


ACCOUNT OF LORD MOUNTEAGLE. 


Account of 
Lord Mount- 
eagle. 


after his arraignment, “ Divers were to have been 
brought out of danger, which now would rather hurt 
them than otherwise. I do not think that there were 
three worth saving that should have been lost; you 
may guess that I had some friends that were in danger, 
which 1 prevented.” 

We are now arrived at the incident of the discovery 
of the Plot by means of the mysterious letter to Lord 
Mounteagle. That the discovery occurred in some 
manner through the instrumentality of Lord Mount¬ 
eagle is hardly to be questioned ; that it occurred in the 
mode declared by the authorised version of the story 
in what was called the “ King’s Book ” may reasonably be 
doubted. It may materially assist in forming a probable 
judgment upon the facts to consider the domestic and 
personal history of Lord Mounteagle, and also his precise 
position at the beginning of the reign of James. 

William Parker, Lord Mounteagle, was the eldest 
son of Edward, Lord Morley, a Protestant peer, in high 
estimation at the courts of Elizabeth and James. In 
1605 he was about thirty-one years of age.* Before 
he was eighteen years old he married a daughter of 
Sir Thomas Tresham, and thus became connected with 
several Roman Catholic families, and in particular with 
those of Throckmorton, Winter, and Catesby. The 
correspondence of the time exhibits him as particularly 
intimate with Catesby, j- Tresham, and Thomas Winter, 

'* In one of the Rushton Letters he is said to have attained the 
age of eighteen years in 1592. 

f See the Letter from him to Catesby at Lypiat, discovered by 
Mr. Bruce, Arcliaeologia, vol. xxviii. p. 420. 


MOUNTEAGLE’S IMPLICATION IN EARLIER PLOTS. 79 

the latter of whom had been apparently employed 
by him as a secretary or personal attendant of some 
kind during the whole time of the preparation of the 
Plot and up to the eve of its completion. With 
Catesby, Tresham, and the two Wrights, Lord Mount- 
eagle had been involved in the Earl of Essex’s re¬ 
bellious attempt; and although he escaped arraignment, 
as Catesby, Tresham, and the Wrights had done, he 
was fined, and remained in custody for his share in 
that transaction until the end of the year 1601.* 
About the time of his discharge from this custody, 
Garnet, the superior of the Jesuits in England, re¬ 
ceived two breves from Pope Clement VIII., enjoining 
the English Roman Catholics, upon Elizabeth’s death, 
to admit of no Protestant successor to the English 
throne. These breves were shown by Garnet to 
Catesby, and by him to Lord Mounteagle in February 
1602 ;f and, acting upon these breves, there is no doubt 
that he was a party to the mission of Thomas Winter 
and Father Green way to the King of Spain at that 
time, inviting him to invade England with an army, 
and promising the co-operation of the English Roman 
Catholics.^ At this point of time, therefore, Lord 

* Council Register, 1601. Tanner MSS. p. 76. 

f Garnet’s Examinations, March 14 and 26, 1606. State-Paper 
Office. The Examinations are printed in Criminal Trials, vol. ii. 
p. 277-8. See also Garnet’s Examination, March 27, 1606, Addi¬ 
tional MSS. in the British Museum, No. 6178, and Archseologia, 
vol. xxix. 

X Examination of Thomas Winter (without date, but about 
27tli November, 1605), and Examination of Francis Tresham, 29th 
November, 1605, State-Paper Office. In the originals of both these 
examinations great pains have been taken to erase Lord Mounteagle’s 


80 CHANGES HIS COURSE ON THE ACCESSION OF JAMES. 

Mounteagle was not only a zealous Roman Catholic, but 
was an accomplice in a treasonable correspondence with 
the Queen’s enemy, for the purpose of forcibly esta¬ 
blishing a Roman Catholic Government. But from this 
period he appears to have altered his course. He was 
a party to the mission of Thomas Winter to the King 
of Spain in the last year of Elizabeth’s reign; but to 
the mission of Christopher Wright into Spain soon after 
James’s accession (which seems to have been merely a 
continuation or renewal of the proposal made by 
Thomas Winter), he was neither party nor privy : 
and, on the contrary, we find him rendering essential 
service to James by assisting the Earl of Southampton 
to secure the Tower of London.* In the first Par¬ 
liament of James, assembled in March 1604, he was 
called by writ of summons to the House of Lords under 
his mother’s title; and the Journals show that from 
that time he constantly attended in his place. In the 
charter of creation of Prince Charles as Duke of York 
in January 1605, his name appears as one of the 
witnesses.! From these facts it is probable that Lord 
Mounteagle was induced (as other distinguished Roman 
Catholics had been) to withdraw himself from the 

name in one of them a piece of paper has been curiously pasted 
over it. By holding the Papers to the light the name is in both 
cases distinctly visible. It is remarkable that with these two muti¬ 
lated exceptions none of the Examinations of Fawkes or Thomas 
Winter, in which Mounteagle was probably mentioned, are to be 
found at the State-Paper Office. See Criminal Trials, vol. ii. p. 67 
{note) and p. 139, 

* Petition Apologetical of Lay Catholics of England. 

t Rymer’s Fcedera, vol. xvi. p. 60G. 



LETTER TO LORD MOUNTEAGLE. 


81 


desperate courses of Catesby and his companions, and 
following the party of the Howards, to rely upon the 
alleged disposition of the King to grant toleration to 
the Roman Catholics. He may thus have constituted 
one of those Roman Catholic courtiers whom James 
himself describes as the (t tame ducks ” used by an 
artful policy to “ decoy the wild ones.” At all events, 
it appears from several recorded facts that he enjoyed 
at this time the full favour of the court.* He is 
applied to by Sir Edward Bushell to excuse him to 
the Queen for disobedience to her commands; he calls 
at Richmond to “kiss the Prince’s hand” on his way 
to London, a few days only before the discovery of 
the Plot; and, above all, he has influence enough with 
the King to induce him to solicit from the French 
King as a favour the enlargement of his brother, 
Mr. Parker, who had been imprisoned at Calais for a 
violent outrage committed there.f 

On Saturday the 26th of October, ten days before 
the intended meeting of Parliament, Lord Mounteagle 
unexpectedly, and without any apparent reason or 
previous notice, directed a supper to be prepared at his 
mansion at Hoxton, where he had not been for more 
than a month before that time. Whilst he was at 
table, about seven o’clock in the evening, a letter was 
brought to him by one of his pages, who said he had 
received it the same evening from a man in the street, 
whose features he could not distinguish. The page 

* See Remarks upon Lord Mounteagle, Arcliaeologia, vol. xxxix. 

t Depeclies de M. de Beaumont. 

E 3 


Letter to 
Lord Mount¬ 
eagle. 


82 LETTER TO LORD MOUNTEAGLE. 

stated that the stranger had asked him “ if the Lord 
Mounteagle was there, and whether he could speak to 
himand on being told that his lordship was then at 
supper, that he had given him a letter, enjoining him “ to 
deliver it into his master’s own hands, as it contained 
matters of importance.” Lord Mounteagle opened the 
letter, and perceiving that it had neither date nor 
signature, directed a gentleman in his service, named 
Ward, to read it aloud.* The letter was as follows :— 

44 my lord out of the love i beare to some of youer 
“ friends i have a caer of youer preservacion therefor i 
44 would advyse yowe as yowe tender youer lyf to devyse 
4 4 some exscuse to shift of youer attendance at this parlea- 
44 ment for god and man hathe concurred to punishe the 
44 wickednes of this tyme and thinke not slightlye of this 
44 advertisment but retyere youre self into youre contri 
44 wheare yowe maye expect the event in safti for 
44 thowghe theare be no apparence of anni stir yet I saye 
44 they shall receyve a terrible blowe this parleament 
44 and yet they shall not seie who hurts them this councel 
44 is not to be contemned because it maye do yowe good 
44 and can do yowe no harme for the dangere is passed 
44 as soon as yowe have burnt the letter and i hope god 
44 will give yowe the grace to mak good use of it to 
44 whose holy proteccion i commend yowe.” 

The letter is addressed 44 To the right honorable the 
lord mowteagle.”t 

* Greenway’s MS. 

t The original of this letter is at the State-Paper Office. An 
indifferent fac-simile has been published in the Arehaeologia. 


CONJECTURES AS TO THE AUTHOR OF THE LETTER. 83 
At this point of the narrative it is a natural, and it Conjectures 

1 • . . . „ . . respecting 

may be a very important, subject' of inquiry, who Was th 0 author of 

J 1 J this letter. 

tlie author of tins letter ? Among several conjectures 
upon this subject, the most currently adopted is that 
which ascribes it to Mrs. Abington, the sister of Lord 
Mounteagle, and the wife of Mr. Thomas Abington, a 
Roman Catholic gentleman residing at Henlip, near 
Worcester, who was at first suspected to have been 
privy to the Plot, and who was actually convicted of 
misprision of treason in having harboured and concealed 
some of the traitors. This conjecture appears to have 
been first expressed nearly a century after the event 
had occurred, in the course of the discussions which 
took place in the reign of Charles II. respecting the 
Popish Plot; since which time it has been adopted and 
reasserted with so much confidence by almost all writers 
who have treated of this period, that it became, to all 
appearance, a fixed point in history. No evidence or 
argument, however, has been adduced in support of 
this conjecture beyond a vague local tradition—an 
authority which is seldom to be much relied upon, and 
which, in this instance, might naturally arise from the 
near relationship of Mrs. Abington to Lord Mounteagle. 

On the other hand, no contemporary writer alludes to 
Mrs. Abington as the author of the letter; and it ' 
appears, by positive testimony,* confirmed by many 
concurring circumstances, that neither Mr. Abington 
nor his wife were aware of the Plot until after its 
failure. This seems indeed to have been the impression 
* Hall’s Examination, March 6th, 1605—State-Paper Office. 


84 


MRS. ABINGTON. 


of the Government; for when Mr. Abington was 
arrested, he was not charged with having been 
concerned in, or privy to, the Plot, but with mispiision 
of treason in having concealed Father Garnet in his 
house after he had been proclaimed as a traitor.* 
Under these circumstances, and in the absence ol any 
express evidence of the fact, the ascription of the letter 
to Mrs. Abington may perhaps be considered as one of 
those numerous false points, which, having been 
succo;ested in the first instance to remove a difficulty, 
have been copied without doubt or inquiry by one 
historian from another, and have thus become esta¬ 
blished errors. 

Another conjecture has been made, ascribing the 
letter to Anne Vaux, the daughter of William, Lord 
Vaux, and the devoted friend and companion of Father 
Garnet.f But there is no evidence that Anne Vaux, 

* It is worthy of remark, perhaps, although it is obviously not a 
conclusive argument, that Mrs. Abington was about this time in 
child-bed, her son, William Abington, a well known poet, being 
stated on the authority of Wood (Ath. Oxon. vol. iii. p. 224, edit. 
BlissA, to have been born at Hendlip, on the 4tli of November, 1605, 
the day before the meeting of Parliament. 

f Gent. Mag. vol. 98, pt. 2, p. 601. The same writer reasserts 
his proposition in the Gentleman's Magazine for March, 1835. This 
suggestion is founded on the supposed identity of the handwriting 
of the letter to Lord Mounteagle with that of many letters and 
papers unquestionably written by Anne Vaux, and still preserved at 
the State-Paper Office. It rests therefore upon a fact respecting 
which a judgment may be formed by a personal inspection. After a 
careful examination and comparison of the papers, word by word, 
and letter by letter, I am quite unable to discover the alleged 
identity of the handwriting. It is true that both are written in 
a Roman character; but the use of this character was by no means 
uncommon in the writing of that day. And the argument from the 


ANNE VAUX. 


85 


any more than Mrs. Abington, knew of the Plot before 
it was discovered;—she protests herself that she did 
not. She was long in custody on suspicion, and re¬ 
peatedly examined ; hut no prosecution followed, and 
there is nothing in any of the examinations to implicate 
her in the transaction except her near relationship to 
some of the conspirators, her intimate acquaintance with 
all of them, and her adherence to Garnet after he was 
declared a traitor by the royal proclamation. 

After all, if the letter were really written, as both 
these conjectures suppose, by a party to the Plot, for the 
mere purpose of saving Lord Mounteagle’s life by a 
significant hint, without intending to prevent the exe¬ 
cution of the scheme, it is in vain to attempt to discover 
the author by the handwriting. To such a person it 
would have been of the first importance to remain un¬ 
known ; every precaution and artifice would have been 
used to prevent the tracing of the letter, and it seems 
preposterous to suppose that either Anne Vaux, the 
intimate friend of Lord Mounteagle, the near relation 

supposed identity of the handwriting goes much too far. If Anne 
Vaux wrote the letter in her own undisguised hand, Lord Mount- 
eagle, who had married her cousin, and was her intimate friend, 
must have recognised it, and must have known from whom the letter 
came. Would he then have taken this paper to the council, and 
thus have endangered the life of his friend and relative, who had 
saved him from destruction ? Again, if Mrs. Vaux wrote the letter, 
and was indifferent whether Lord Mounteagle discovered the writer, 
there could be no reason why she should have made the communica¬ 
tion in this mysterious manner. Besides, if the handwriting were 
“ precisely identical,” as this writer supposes, the council, who were 
in possession of many papers written by Anne Vaux, would not have 
failed to charge her as a full accomplice to the Plot. 



86 


TRESHAM PROBABLY THE WRITER, 


Letter pro¬ 
bably written 
or devised 
by Tresham. 


of his wife, or Mrs. Abington, his own sister, would 
have sent the letter in question without taking care 
effectually to disguise the character of the handwriting. 

It is proper to notice a statement in the “ Discourse 
of the Discovery of the Gunpowder Plot,” which would 
seem to point at Percy as the author of the letter. In 
that narrative Lord Mounteagle is represented as saying 
to the Earl of Suffolk, on their return from the cellar, 
that “ considering both his backwardness in religion, 
and the old dearness in friendship between him and 
Percy, he did greatly suspect that the letter should 
come from him.” For reasons which will presently be 
stated, it is improbable that Lord Mounteagle really 
suspected Percy to be the author of the letter, although 
to serve the purpose of concealing the real writer he 
might have expressed such a suspicion. At all events, 
there is no reason whatever, besides this statement, 
for supposing Percy to have sent the letter; his 
“backwardness in religion,” and his friendship with 
Mounteagle, are arguments which apply to several 
other conspirators, and with particular force to Tresham; 
and the whole story of Lord Mounteagle’s remark to 
the Earl of Suffolk may have been invented for the 
purpose of diverting the public mind from the real 
fact, which it is evident that the Government were 
anxious to suppress. 

The expression of a confident judgment upon so 
obscure a question would be unjustifiable; but all the 
probabilities of the case coincide with the opinion 
entertained by the conspirators themselves, and ex- 


TRESHAM’S FIDELITY SUSPECTED. 


87 


pressed by several contemporary writers, viz. that 
the person by whom the Plot was in some mode or 
other declared to Lord Mounteagle, was Tresham. 
That he actually wrote* the letter may reasonably be 
doubted; but that he was in some manner the author of 
the discovery is consistent with all the ascertained facts 
of the transaction, and is confirmed by many strong cir¬ 
cumstances. Amongst the avowed conspirators, there 
was not one besides Tresham who was ever suspected 
by his companions to have revealed the secret; whereas 
Tresham’s fidelity was doubted by Catesby and Winter 
from the moment of his joining the confederacy ; and 
Father Green way, who was familiar with all their 
schemes and thoughts, who was with them in London 
and in Warwickshire, both before and after the discovery 
of the Plot, expressly says that the suspicions of the 
conspirators themselves rested upon Tresham, and upon 
Tresham alone.f Accordingly, we find that by almost 
all the Koman Catholic historians of the Plot, Tresham 
is stated to have been the betrayer. J No other conspi¬ 
rator had so peculiar an interest in the safety of Lord 
Mounteagle, who was his brother-in-law, and had been 

* This was, however, the general opinion of contemporaries both 
in England and abroad. The following is an extract from a French 
account of the Plot in the State-Paper Office :—“ Et ce qui rend ce 
malheureux desseing tant plus affreux et terrible, c’est que pour 
avoir este l’affaire un au entier a trainer, il n’en fut toutesfois concju 
aucun soup 9 on que 8 ou 10 jours auparavant; et ce par le moyen 
d’une lettre ne portant ny seing ny date, la quelle un des complices 
nomme Tressam e'crivit au Baron de Montegle son beau-frere.” 

f Green way’s MS. 

% See Bartoli Historia della Compagnia di Giesu, lTnghilterra, 
lib. vi. Juvencii Hist. Soc. Jesu, lib. xiii. sect. 45. 


88 SUGGESTION THAT LORD MOUNTEAGLE 

his friend and confederate in former treasons. It is 
clear too, both from his own statement and that of' 
Father Greenway, that at the last Tresham was from 
cowardice or conscience a reluctant confederate in the 
Plot, and anxiously desired to put an end to it, if he 
could have done so without endangering himself or 
sacrificing his companions. For these reasons it is, at 
any rate, not improbable that he should endeavour to 
effect both these purposes by a communication to Lord 
Mounteagle, and through him perhaps to the Govern¬ 
ment, saving his conscience and his natural feelings 
towards his friends by an express stipulation that a hint 
of the discovery should be given to the conspirators in 
order to afford them an opportunity to escape. 

. It has indeed been suggested that Mounteagle him¬ 
self was privy to the Plot, and it must be admitted that 
there are circumstances which at first sight might 
appear to justify that conclusion. His near connexion 
through his wife with the principal conspirators, his 
intimate friendship with some of them, his engagement 
with several others in recent desperate plots for the 
advancement of the Koman Catholic cause, and his 
employment of one of the men who actually worked in 
the mine in a confidential office near his person, are 
facts which raise a strong presumption of his criminal 
implication in the Gunpowder Plot. And such an 
impression appears to have prevailed to some extent 
among contemporaries, for Lord Salisbury says in a 
Letter to Sir E. Coke, containing suggestions of topics 
to be remembered in his speech on the trials, “You 


WAS PRIVY TO THE PLOT. 


89 


must not omit to deliver words in commendation of 
my Lord Mounteagle to show how sincerely he dealt; 
because it is so lewdly given out that he was once of 
this plot of powder and afterwards betrayed it all to 
me.”* There is, however, a fact which seems to 
outweigh all the presumptive evidence against Lord 
Mounteagle in this matter—none of the ascertained 
conspirators, although they accuse him unreservedly of 
assisting in the Spanish treason, charge him either 
directly or indirectly with being a party to the 
Powder Plot. Again, if Lord Mounteagle was really 
one of the sworn conspirators, Greenway must have 
known the fact. He had their entire confidence. 
He was their confessor and spiritual adviser. He was 
familiar with their most secret thoughts and actions. 
He was in truth himself an active confederate with 
them in this, as well as in previous treasons. He had 
even joined the fugitives after the failure of the 
enterprise,t and had he not contrived to escape beyond 
sea, he would no doubt have shared their fate. But 
Greenway describes the transaction nearly in the words 
of the authorised account. He expresses doubts 
whether the celebrated letter was really the means of 
the discovery, but he never intimates a suspicion of 

* Draft Letter in State-Paper Office. Criminal Trials, vol. ii. 
p. 120, note. 

f When the disheartened conspirators were on their flight 
through Worcestershire, Father Greenway came to them from 
Coughton. On this occasion, Catesby, on seeing Green way approach¬ 
ing them, exclaimed, “ Here is a gentleman that will live and die 
with us.” Henry Morgan’s Examination, January 10, 1G05, 6. 
State-Paper Office. 


90 LETTER TO LORD MOUNTEAGLE NOT THE 

treachery or breach of faith on the part of Lord 
Mounteagle ; on the other hand he denounces Tresham, 
whom he and the other conspirators always suspected 
to be the betrayer, in terms of bitter reproach. This 
silence on the part of all the avowed conspirators, and 
especially of Greenway, appears to be quite inconsistent 
with the notion that Lord Mounteagle was a party to 
the Gunpowder Plot. If he had broken his oath and 
his faith with them, they could have regarded him 
with no friendly feeling, and could have had no motive 
for sparing him when pressed to declare their accom¬ 
plices.* 

It is, however, hardly credible that the letter was the 
first intimation given to Lord Mounteagle of the Plot. 
A person intending to preserve his friend from a 
threatened danger would have taken a more direct and 
intelligible mode of insuring his object than by this 
ambiguous and anonymous epistle. No man, of ordi¬ 
nary understanding, still less a person of Tresham’s 
shrewdness and caution, could have calculated with 
certainty, that this letter, generally unmeaning in its 

* This subject is more fully discussed in a paper in the Archfeo- 
logia, vol. xxix. p. 96. A few years ago, Mr. Bruce discovered a 
curious letter from Lord Mounteagle to Catesby, which was read by 
him at a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries, and was published 
in the Archseologia, vol. xxviii. p. 420. The letter is dated 
October 12th, but is unfortunately without a date of the year; and 
unless it was written in the year 1605 it affords no argument to 
show that Mounteagle was privy to the Plot; and for reasons stated 
at large in the paper above referred to, it appears more probable 
that the letter was written in 1602. The letter, however, is a good 
illustration of the familiar intimacy subsisting between Lord Mount¬ 
eagle and Catesby. 


FIRST NOTICE OF THE PLOT TO HIM. 


91 


terms, and particularly obscure as to the kind of danger 
to be avoided, would have had the effect of diverting 
Lord Mounteagle, who was by no means deficient in 
courage, from his purpose of attending the Parliament. 
Lord Salisbury expresses this opinion in his letter* to 
Sir Charles Cornwallis, the ambassador in Spain, 
saying, that “ no wise man could think my lord to be 
so weak as to take any alarm to absent himself from 
Parliament upon such a loose advertisement.” Many 
considerations tend to confirm the truth of Father 
Greenway’s suggestion, that the whole story of the 
letter was merely a device of the Government to cover 
Tresham’s treachery, or for some other state reason, to 
conceal the true source from which their information 
had been derived, f 

The circumstance of Lord Mounteagle’s unexpected 
visit to his house at Hoxton, without any other 

* Winwood’s Memorials, vol. ii. p. 170. 

f In Fullman’s Collection at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, 
there are some notes addressed to Anthony W oocl, containing 
several suggestions respecting the history of the Gunpowder Plot. 
It is said, “ The Lord Mounteagle knew there was a letter to be 
sent to him before it came and, in answer to a query on the note 
in Fullman’s hand respecting the proof of this, there is added after¬ 
wards in the hand of the original author of the notes, “ by Edmund 
Church, Esq., his confident,” vol. ii. A similar suspicion appears to 
have occurred to contemporaries; for Sir Edward Hoby, after giving 
an account of the discovery of the Plot in a letter to Sir Thomas 
Edmondes, dated November 19, 1605, says, “ Such as are apt to 
interpret all things to the worst will not believe other but that 
Mounteagle might, in a policy, cause this letter to be sent, fearing 
the discovery already of the letter, the rather that one Thomas 
Ward, a principal man about him, is suspected to be accessary to the 
conspiracy.” Add.MSS.in the British Museum, No.41 <6. Nichollss 
Progresses of James I., vol. i. p. 584. 


92 TRESHAM’S SCHEME DESTROYED BY CONSPIRATORS. 

assignable reason, on the evening in question, looks 
like the arrangement of a convenient scene; and it is 
deserving of notice, that the gentleman to whom his 
lordship gave the letter to read at his table was Thomas 
Ward, an intimate friend of several of the conspirators, 
and suspected to have been an accomplice in the 
treason.* The open reading of such a letter before his 
household, (which, unless it be supposed to be a part 
of a counterplot, seems a very unnatural and imprudent 
course for Lord Mounteagle to adopt,) might be intended 
to secure evidence that the letter was the first intima¬ 
tion he had of the matter, and would have the effect of 
giving notice to Ward that the Plot was discovered, in 
order that he might communicate the fact to the con¬ 
spirators. In truth he did so on the very next morn¬ 
ing; and if they had then taken the alarm, and in¬ 
stantly fled into Flanders, (as it was natural to suppose 
they would have done,) every part of Tresham’s object 
would have been attained. His scheme was frustrated 
by the unexpected and extraordinary infatuation of 
the conspirators themselves, who, notwithstanding their 
knowledge of the letter, disbelieved the discovery of 
the Plot from the absence of any search at the cellar, 
and omitting to avail themselves of the means afforded 
for their flight, still lingered in London. The conduct 
of Tresham at this precise point of time is peculiarly 
remarkable. On the day of the delivery of the letter 
to Lord Mounteagle he is absent in Northamptonshire, 

* Greenway’s MS., and Iioby’s Letter to Edmondes, November 
19th. 


LETTER TAKEN TO LORD SALISBURY. 93 

which might be contrived to avert the suspicion of the 
conspirators from himself; two days afterwards he 
comes to London, and presses Catesby in the most 
urgent manner to depart; advances him money for his 
journey, and promises him that when he has left the 
country he shall always “ live upon his purse on 
the following Saturday, only three days before the 
fatal 5th of November, he meets Thomas Winter, by 
appointment, in Lincoln’s Inn Walks, tells him that, to 
his certain knowledge, the cellar and its contents were 
fully known to the Council, implores him passionately 
to begone immediately, and talks, as Greenway ex¬ 
presses it, like a “man beside himself” during the 
whole interview.! 

Lord Mounteagle took the letter the same evening 
to the Earl of Salisbury at Whitehall, whom he found 
about to go to supper in company with the Lord 
Admiral and the Earls of Suffolk, Worcester, and 
Northampton. Taking the Earl of Salisbury aside 
into another chamber, Lord Mounteagle showed him 
the letter, and related to him the circumstances of its 
delivery. As soon as the Earl had read the letter, he 
told Lord Mounteagle that “ he had done like a discreet 
nobleman not to conceal a matter of such a nature, 
whatever the consequence might proveand he 
added that “ as he had always found his Lordship full 
of duty and love to his Majesty and the State he would 
confess to him thus much as an argument that some 


Lord Mount¬ 
eagle takes 
the letter to 
the Earl of 
Salisbury. 


* Tresham’s Declaration, November 13th.—State-Paper Office, 
f Green way’s MS. 


94 LETTER SHOWN TO THE LORDS AT WHITEHALL. 

practice might be doubted, that he had, during the last 
three months, acquainted the King and some of his 
Council, that the priests and laymen abroad and at home 
were full of practice and conspiracy with most of the 
Papists of this kingdom, seeking to lay some plot for 
procuring at this Parliament exercise of their religion.” 
Lord Salisbury showed the letter this same evening to 
the Lords who were at Whitehall; and it was agreed 
that nothing should be done until the return of the King, 
who was then absent on a hunting expedition at 
Royston. 


CATESBY AND WINTER INFORMED OF THE LETTER. 95 


CHAPTER IV. 


Conspirators informed of the Letter to Lord Mounteagle—Fawkes’s 
courage in visiting the Cellar—The Letter shown to the King— 

Search of the Cellar—Apprehension of Fawkes—His first Exa¬ 
mination—Flight of the Conspirators—Rendezvous at Dunchurch 
—Determination to go into Wales—John Talbot of Grafton— 

Desperate condition of the Conspirators on their flight—Explosion 
of Gunpowder at Holbeach—Catesby, Percy, and the two Wrights 
killed, and other Conspirators taken—Apprehension of Tresham— 

His Declaration—His Death—His dying retractation of his state¬ 
ments respecting Garnet. 

Thomas Winter had received notice of the letter to Notice to the 

Conspirators 

Lord Mounteagle, and also of its delivery to the of the Letter 
Secretary of State, the morning after the latter circum- Mounteagle. 
stance had taken place, by means of an express com¬ 
munication from Thomas Ward, the gentleman who 
had first read the letter to Lord Mounteagle.* This 
intelligence, which was instantly conveyed by Winter 
to Catesby, filled the minds of both with anxiety and 
alarm. Before they communicated it to the other con¬ 
spirators, they determined to ascertain with certainty 
whether the Plot was actually discovered, and, if neces- 


* Greenway’s MS. 


96 


FAWKES’S COURAGE. 


sary, to take immediate measures to save themselves 
and their confederates by flight. This they might 
easily have accomplished by means of the ship then 
lying in the Thames, which was to have conveyed 
Fawkes to Flanders as soon as the explosion had taken 
place, and which was ready to sail at a few hours’ 
notice. Their first step was to endeavour to discover 
the author of the letter. Their suspicions .rested 
wholly on Tresham ; who, at the time the letter was 
received, had been absent for about a week in North¬ 
amptonshire, He returned on Wednesday, the 30th 
of October, and Catesby and Winter sending for him to 
White Webbs to confer with him on business of im¬ 
portance, directly charged him with having written 
the letter to Lord Mounteagle. They had previously 
resolved that if he confessed the fact, or confirmed 
their suspicions by faltering or hesitation, they would 
have poniarded him on the spot. He denied the 
charge with such firmness, and with so many oaths 
and solemn protestations, that their purpose was 
shaken, though they still doubted his sincerity. They 
then returned to London, and sent Fawkes to the 
cellar, without informing him of the danger he ran 
in such an expedition, to observe whether the private 
marks placed within the door had been disturbed. 
He went accordingly, examined the cellar carefully, 
and found all the marks precisely as he had left them. 
On returning to Catesby and Winter with this report, 
they for the first time informed him of the letter to 
Lord Mounteagle, and excused themselves by the 


LETTER SHOWN TO THE KING. 


97 


necessity of tlie case, for having placed him in such 
imminent peril without warning him of it. Fawkes 
declared that he should have executed the commission 
quite as readily if he had known of the letter before he 
went; and undertook to go daily to the cellar to make a 
similar examination. Encouraged by the absence of any 
search for so many days, the conspirators flattered them¬ 
selves that the import of the letter had been mistaken, or 
that it had been considered by the Government as a 
mere practice upon the credulity of Lord Mounteagle, 
and they no longer concealed the circumstance from 
such of their confederates as were in London.* 

The Kino; returned to London on Thursday, the The Letter 

D J shown to the 

31st of October, and on the following day the letter Kin £- 
was shown to him by Lord Salisbury, and the cir¬ 
cumstances of its delivery to Lord Mounteagle were 
related to him. According to the courtly version of 
the story in the history of the Gunpowder Plot, the 
penetration of the King, which is ascribed by Sir 
Edward Coke, in his speech on the trial of the con¬ 
spirators, to a divine illumination, immediately dis¬ 
covered the whole scheme in the obscure language of 
the letter. His sagacity, it is said, instantly con¬ 
strued “ the terrible blow to be received this Parlia¬ 
ment ” to be a blowing-up of the Parliament House 
with gunpowder; and the words, “ the danger is past 
as soon as you have burnt this letter,” which appeared 
to Lord Salisbury, and which must appear to every 
common understanding, mere nonsense, were at once 

* Greenway’s MS. 


F 


98 CONSPIRATORS INFORMED OF IT. 

understood by the English Solomon to refer to the 
“ suddenness and quickness of the danger, which 
should be as quickly performed and at an end as 
that paper should be a blazing up in the fire.” Un¬ 
fortunately for the credit of this tale of royal discern¬ 
ment, Lord Salisbury, in his relation of the trans¬ 
action to Sir Charles Cornwallis, the ambassador at 
the Court of Spain,* and also in a narrative of the 
discovery of the Plot, to be found at the State-Paper 
Office, declares that this interpretation of the letter 
had occurred to himself and the Lord Chamberlain, 
and had been communicated by them to several Lords 
of the Council, before the subject had been mentioned 
to the King. He also states, that on showing the 
letter to his Majesty, the King concurred with them in 
thinking, that “ that should be done which would 
prevent all danger, or nothing at alland therefore 
that till the night before the King went to the House, 
“ nothing should be done to interrupt any purpose of 
theirs that had any such devilish practice, but rather 
to suffer them to go on to the end of the day.” . Ac¬ 
cordingly, though the discovery of the nature of the 
Plot is stated to have taken place a full week before, 
no search was undertaken at the cellar until Monday 
the 4th of November, the day before that on which 
the meeting of Parliament was to take place. 

On Sunday, the 3rd of November, the conspirators 
heard from the same individual who had first informed 
them of the letter to Lord Mounteagle, that the letter 
# Winwood’s Memorials, vol. ii. p. 173. 


THEIR MISGIVINGS RESPECTING TRESHAM. 99 
had been shown to the Kino;, who made great account Misgivings 

r . , . . . & of the Con- 

OI it, but enioined the strictest secrecy. This in- s P irat . ors re- 

° J speeting 

telligence destroyed all their confidence, and troubled Tresham - 
them exceedingly. They determined, however, to 
have another interview with Tresham, and an appoint¬ 
ment was made by Thomas Winter to meet him in 
Lincoln’s Inn Walks on the same evening. Tresham 
spoke like a frantic man; he said that to his certain 
knowledge the whole Plot was discovered, and that 
they were all lost men, unless they saved themselves 
by instant flight.* This conduct and language on the 
part of Tresham, being reported by Winter to the con¬ 
federates, convinced them that he was in communica¬ 
tion with Lord Mounteagle, and perhaps with the 
Government; but under an unaccountable infatuation 
that Tresham might be deceived respecting the extent of 
the information possessed by the Council, or that he was 
interested in deceiving them as to the discovery of the 
cellar, they resolved, at the urgent suggestion of Percy, 
to await the event of the following day. It was settled, 
however, that Catesby and John Wright should at all 
events leave London on the folloAving afternoon, and 
join Sir Everard Digby at Duncliurch. Percy and 
Thomas Winter concealed themselves in an obscure 
lodging, and all who remained in London held 
themselves ready to start at a moment’s notice. Fawkes 
alone, with that extraordinary courage which he had 
displayed throughout the transaction, took up his 
solitary station at the cellar. 

* Green way’s MS. 

F 2 


100 


SEARCH OF THE CELLAR. 


search of the On the Monday afternoon, the Lord Chamberlain, 

Cellar by 

the Lord whose duty it was to see that all the arrangements 

Chamberlain. 

for the meeting of Parliament were complete, went to 
the Parliament House, accompanied by Lord Mount- 
eagle, who, it was said, expressed a desire to be present 
at the search. They first went into the Parliament 
Chamber, and remained there a considerable time ; and 
then visited the vaults and cellars under the house. 
They remarked the great store of coals and wood there, 
and perceived Fawkes standing in a corner. The Lord 
Chamberlain, with affected carelessness, inquired to 
whom this large provision of fuel belonged; and being 
informed that the cellar and its contents belonged to 
Percy, and that he had rented it for about a year and 
a half, retired without making any more* particular 
search, to report his observations to the King. On 
their way, Lord Mounteagle expressed his fears and 
suspicions that some mischief was intended, on the 
ground, because although he was an intimate friend 
of Percy, and had lived with him for many years 
on terms of familiarity, he had not the least notion 
that he ever inhabited this house. Upon hearing the 
statement of the Lord Chamberlain, who declared 
the store of coals and wood to be beyond all propor¬ 
tion to the wants of a person who dwelt so little in 
the house as Percy, and that the man in the cellar 
looked like “ a very tall and desperate fellow,” it was 
determined by the King, with the concurrence of 
several of the Privy Council, that the cellar should that 
night be minutely searched. In order, however, not to 


< 


ARREST OF FAWKES AND DISCOVERY OF POWDER. 101 

excite premature alarm, they employed Sir Thomas 
Knevet, a magistrate in Westminster (who had been a 
gentleman of the Privy Chamber in the late Queen’s 
time, and still held the same office), to superintend a 
general search of all the houses and cellars in the 
neighbourhood, under pretence of looking for some 
stufl and hangings belonging to the King’s wardrobe, 
which had been missing ever since the death of the 
late Queen.* 

Meanwhile, the visit of Lord Mounteagle to the 
cellar, and the inquiry of the Lord Chamberlain re¬ 
specting the wood and coals, had been quite sufficient 
to alarm the vigilance of Fawkes. He went out to 
inform Percy of what had happened, but returned 
himself to his dangerous post; fully determined, as 
he afterwards declared, to have blown up the house 
on the first appearance of danger, and so to have 
perished together with those who might come to 
apprehend him. 

Shortly before midnight, on the eve of the cele¬ 
brated 5th of November, Sir Thomas Knevet, accom¬ 
panied by a sufficient number of assistants, repaired 
secretly and suddenly to the house. At the moment 
of their arrival, Fawkes was stepping out of the door, 
dressed, and booted, having, as he afterwards said, just 
then ended his work. He was stayed, and Sir Thomas 
Knevet proceeded to examine the cellar, where he 
found thirty-six barrels of powder under the billets, in 
casks and hogsheads. Upon this discovery, Fawkes 
* Lord Salisbury’s Letter to Sir C. Cornwallis. 


/ 


102 FAWKES’S FIRST EXAMINATION AT WHITEHALL. 

was seized and bound band and foot; a watch, together 
with slow matches and touchwood, were found upon 
his person, and a dark lantern,* with a light in it, 
was discovered in a corner behind the door of the 
cellar. He at once avowed his purpose to Sir Thomas 
Knevet, and declared that “ if he had happened to be 
within the house when he took him, he would not 
have failed to have blown him up, house, himself and 
all.” t ' ' ' ^ 

Fawkes’s Having left a sufficient guard with the prisoner, 
at Whitehall. Sir Thomas Knevet repaired to Whitehall to give 
notice of his success to the Earl of Salisbury. It w T as 
now about one o’clock in the morning. Such of the 
Council as slept at Whitehall were called, and the 
others who were in town summoned ; and the doors 
and gates being secured, all assembled in the King’s 
bedchamber. Fawkes was brought in and questioned. 
Undismayed by the suddenness of his apprehension, 
or by the circumstances of this nocturnal examination 
before the King and Council, this resolute fanatic 
behaved with a Roman firmness of nerve, which 
filled the minds of all who were present with astonish¬ 
ment, and his cool audacity naturally suggested a 
comparison with the conduct of Mutius Sccevola when 

* An ancient lantern is shown at the Bodleian Library, which 
is said to be the identical lantern found in the cellar; it bears the 
following inscription “ Laterna ilia ipsa qua usus est, et cum qua 
deprehensus Guido Faux in crypta subterranea ubi domo Parliament! 
difflandse operam dabat. Ex dono liobti. Heywood nuper Academia 
Procuratoris, Ap. 4°, 1641.” 

f History of the Gunpowder Plot. Stow, p. 878. 


FAWKES’S FIRST EXAMINATION AT WHITEHALL. 103 

brought before King Porsenna. “ In all this action,” 
says Lord Salisbury in a letter to Sir C. Cornwallis, 
“ he is no more dismayed,—nay, scarce any more 
troubled, than if he were taken for a poor robbery on 
the highway.”* To the impatient and hurried ques¬ 
tions which were put to him with some violence and 
passion, he answered calmly and firmly that “ his 
name was John Johnson, and that he was a servant 
of Thomas Percy ;—that when the King had come to 
the Parliament House that day, and the Upper House 
had been sitting, he meant to have fired the match, 
and fled for his own safety before the powder had 
taken fire; and that if he had not been apprehended 
that night, he had blown up the Upper House, when 
the King, Lords, Bishops, and others had been there.” 

The King asked him, “ Why would you have killed 

% 

me?” “Because,” replied Fawkes, “you are excom¬ 
municated by the Pope.” “How so?” said the King. 
“ Every Maunday Thursday,” answered Fawkes, “ the 
Pope doth excommunicate all heretics, who are not 
of the Church of Rome; and you are within the same 
excommunication.” f Being asked if his purpose had 
taken effect, what would have been done with the 

* Winwood’s Memorials, vol. ii. p. 172. 

f This part of the dialogue was related by Sir Edward Coke when 
Lord Chief Justice a few years afterwards in the discussion of a case 
in the King's Bench.—See Godbolt’s Reports, p. 264. Fawkes, no 
doubt, referred to the Bulla Coen* Domini, by which, on Maunday 
Thursday in every year, an anathema was solemnly pronounced 
against all Protestants, whether princes or people.—See the Bishop 
of Lincoln’s Letter, appended to the edition of The “ Gunpowder 
Treason” published in 1679, pp. 79, 120. 


104 FAWKES’S FIRST EXAMINATION AT WHITEHALL. 

Queen’s Majesty and her royal issue, he replied, that 
“ if they had been there he could not have helped 
them.” Being asked by the King how he could 
conspire against his children and so many innocent 
souls, he answered “ Dangerous diseases require a 
desperate remedy.” His temper appears to have been 
only once disturbed. When questioned as to his 
intentions by some of the Scotch courtiers, who were 
especially odious to the Roman Catholics, he fiercely 
told them that “ one of his objects was to blow them 
back again into Scotland.”* Being further asked 
who were party or privy to this conspiracy, he 
answered that “ he could not resolve to accuse 
any.”f Some brewer’s slings (a kind of handbarrow 
to be used by two persons) having been found in 
the cellar, he admitted that he used them to remove 
the powder from one cellar to the other. He was then 
asked, “ Who helped you to remove the barrels of 
powder, seeing you were not able to remove them 
alone with slings, with which you confess you did 
remove them ?” He answereth “ he cannot discover 
the party, but he shall bring him in question.” J 
After a great part of the night had been spent in 

# MS. Letter of Sir Edward Hoby to Sir Thomas Edmondes. 

f John Johnsons Examination, 5th November 1605—State-Paper 
Office. 

t Fawkes’s Examination, November 6th, 1605—State-Paper Office. 
On the fly-leaf of this Examination are the following words in Sir 
W illiam "W aad s handwriting :—“ You would have me discover my 
friends ; and immediately beneath—“ The giving warning to one 
overthrew us all. T hese are evidently loose notes of Fawkes’s expres¬ 
sions, put down at the time, but not inserted in the Examination. 


FLIGHT OF THE CONSPIRATORS FROM LONDON. 105 


examination. Fawkes was sent with a guard to the 
Tower, where for the present we leave him, in order to 
trace the fortunes of his companions. 

Immediately after Fawkes had given notice of the Flight of the 
visit of the Lord Chamberlain and Lord Mounteagle 0nsiiratoIV ' 
to the cellar, Catesby and John Wright fled. Percy 
and Christopher Wright waited till they ascertained 
that Fawkes was seized, and then left London; but 
Rookwood and Keyes, who dwelt in the same lodg¬ 
ing, and whose persons were not known in London, 
determined to remain till they received more conclu¬ 
sive intelligence. On going abroad the next morning 
they perceived amazement and terror in the coun¬ 
tenances of all they met. The news of Fawkes’s appre¬ 
hension, and exaggerated rumours of a frightful plot 
discovered, were spread in every direction. Guards 
of soldiers were placed not only at the palace gates 
but at all the streets and avenues in the neighbourhood, 
and no person was allowed to pass. Upon this, being 
convinced that all was known, they also determined to 
fly. Keyes quitted London immediately; but Rook¬ 
wood, who had placed relays of horses all the way to 
Dunchurch, lingered to the last moment, in order that 
he might be able to convey to his confederates in 
Warwickshire the latest intelligence of what had taken 
place in London. At eleven o’clock in the forenoon 
he also took horse and rode hastily away. About three 
miles beyond Highgate he came up with Keyes, in 
whose company he rode on for some distance. It does 
not distinctly appear what became of Keyes from this 

F 3 


106 


RENDEZVOUS AT DUNCHURCH. 


Rendezvous 
at Dim- 
church. 


time until he was apprehended in Warwickshire 
several days afterwards. It is clear that he parted 
from Rook wood in Bedfordshire, and it may, therefore 
be conjectured that he went to Lord Mordaunt’s 
house at Turvey, where his wife resided. Rookwood 
rode on to Brickhill, near which place he overtook first 
Catesby and John Wright, and shortly afterwards 
Percy and Christopher Wright ;* and from thence all 
five rode together with the utmost speed to Ashby St. 
Legers, in Northamptonshire. The astonishing rapid¬ 
ity with which they travelled appears from the fact 
that Rookwood left London at about eleven o’clock in 
the forenoon and reached Ashby at six in the evening 
of the same day, a distance of nearly eighty miles. He 
says himself that “ he rode thirty miles of one horse in 
two hours,” and that “ Percy and John Wright cast 
off their cloaks and threw them into the hedofe to ride 

o 

the more speedily. ”f 

It will be remembered that it was part of the original 
plan that Sir Everard Digby should collect at Dun- 

# A servant of Percy’s was sent by Sir Everard Digby, with two 
fresh horses to Hockliffe, between Brickhill and Dunstable, to meet 
his master and Christopher Wright, and to take their tired horses. 
He says that “he saw John Wright passing Hockliffe, who gave him 
a note for Catesby’s boy to let him know where his master was ? 
And he asked the boy, ‘What news in London?’ And he said, 
Nothing but evil news,’ and wept and rode away. Afterwards 
Percy and Christopher Wright came, and asked for the geldings ; 
and never stayed or went into the house, but only into the stable, 
and rode a-gallop away.”—Story’s Examination, November 8th! 
State-Paper Office. 

t Rookwood’s Examination, December 2nd, 1605.—State-Paper 
Office. 


NOTICE OF FAILURE OF THE PLOT. 107 

church, under the pretence of a great chase on Duns- 
more Heath, a party of gentlemen friendly to the 
Roman Catholic cause; and this place was to be the 
general rendezvous of the conspirators, on Tuesday 
night, the 5th of November, after the blow was struck 
in London. With a view to this arrangement, Sir 
Everard Digby, on the 29th of October, removed Lady 
Digby and his family, and with them Father Garnet, 
from his own house at Goathurst to Coughton Hall, 
near Alcester, in Warwickshire, which then belonged 
to Mr. Thomas Throckmorton.* Sir Everard himself 
rode from Coughton to Dunchurch, on Sunday the 3rd 
of November; and on the same day Robert Winter, 
having given notice to the two Littletons, according to 
the agreement with Catesby, left his house at Hudding- 
ton, and sleeping on the Sunday night at Grafton, the 
residence of his father-in-law, John Talbot, rode the 
next day in company with the younger Acton, of 
Ribbesford, and attended by several servants, to Co¬ 
ventry, where he was met by Humphrey and Stephen 
Littleton. On the following day, Tuesday the 5th of 
November, they proceeded towards Dunchurch, their 
company and attendants (all of whom were more or less 
armed) constantly increasing by the way. At Dun¬ 
church, Winter left the Littletons at the “town’s 
end,” and rode himself, with Acton and several others, 
to the residence of Lady Catesby, at Ashby St. Legers, 
to which place it was expected Catesby would come, 

* Wm. Andrews’s Examination at Leicester, November 8tli, 1605. 
—State-Paper Office. 


108 DISPERSION OF THE CONSPIRATORS. 

on his way from London to the rendezvous. About 
six o’clock in the evening, just as AVinter and his 
companions were about to sit down to supper with the 
lady of the mansion, Catesby, Percy, the two Wrights, 
and Rookwood, fatigued and covered with dirt, arrived 
with the news of the apprehension of Fawkes and the 
total overthrow of the main design. After a short 
conference upon the course to be adopted in this 
emergency, the whole party, taking with them all the 
arms they could find, rode off to Dunchurch. There 
they found the house filled with a large party of 
anxious and excited guests; for though only a few 
were informed of the specific nature of the intended 
action, all were aware that some great and decisive 
blow was about to be struck in London for the Roman 
Catholic cause, the intelligence of which they were 
that night to receive. On the arrival of the party from 
London, their jaded appearance, their dejected looks, 
and their gloomy conferences with Sir Everard Digby 
and the other sworn confederates, plainly told the tale 
of disappointed treason. Sir Robert Digby of Coleshill, 
an uncle of Sir Everard, immediately departed with 
one of his sons ; Humphrey Littleton and many others 
followed ; and the company rapidly melted away, till at 
last few remained, except those whose names were 
enrolled and registered as full accomplices in the whole 
plot, and who, as they had every reason to fear, were 
already known to the Government by the disclosure of 
Fawkes.* 

# These particulars are taken partly from Robert Winter’s letter 


TALBOT OF GRAFTON. 


109 


In the midst of these discouraging appearances, one Petermina- 
ground of hope occurred to the mind of Catesby, and into Wales - 
upon that, after a short consultation, the conspirators 
resolved to rely. The Roman Catholics in Wales and 
the counties bordering upon the principality, who were 
a numerous and powerful body, were known to be in 
the highest degree discontented with the present 
Government. It was proposed, therefore, that with as 
large a force of their own retainers and servants as 
they could raise, they should traverse the counties of 
Warwick, Worcester, and Stafford into Wales, exciting 
the Roman Catholic gentry as they went along to join 
them. They expected that the Roman Catholic 
population in the western counties would readily co¬ 
operate with them; and having once established 
themselves in considerable force, they hoped their 
proceedings might be the signal for a general insurrec¬ 
tion of the Roman Catholics of England. 

The confederates relied in particular upon the 
assistance of Mr. Talbot of Grafton, a wealthy and 
influential member of one of the most important families 
in England. Mr. Talbot was presumptive heir to the 
Earldom of Shrewsbury, to which title his son a few 
years afterwards actually succeeded, and which, in 
modern times, has been borne by his lineal descendants. 

He was a zealous Roman Catholic. He had married a 
daughter of Sir William Petre, Secretary-of-State to 

to the Lords of the Council, on January 21st, 1605-6, and partly 
from the examinations of a great variety of witnesses taken in the 
country, and remaining in the State-Paper Office. 



110 


TALBOT OF GRAFTON. 


Queen Mary, and had been repeatedly subjected to 
imprisonment and penalties for recusancy in the reign 
of Elizabeth. Mr. Talbot’s daughter had married 
Robert Winter, and probably this connexion may have 
been the principal reason which induced Catesby to intro¬ 
duce Winter into the conspiracy. Sir Everard Digby, in 
one of his letters from the Tower after his apprehension, 
says “ Those that are dead (meaning Catesby and 
Percy) did promise that all forces in those parts about 
Mr. Talbot would assist usand in another letter he 
says, “We all thought that if we could get Mr. Talbot 
to rise, it would be not a little ; and we had in our 
company his son-in-law, who gave us some hope of 
and did not much doubt it.”* ‘Robert Winter, indeed, 
in his various examinations uniformly denied that he 
gave the conspirators any reason to hope for his father- 
in-law’s assistance. Mr. Talbot was himself examined, 
and his statement, which is still extant at the State- 
Paper Office, consists of a denial of all knowledge of 
the scheme, and an indignant disavowal of its object. 
Nor is there a particle of evidence in existence to 
make it probable that he was acquainted with it.f 
But it was natural that the conspirators should look 
to him as one whose remembrance of past sufferings, 

* See Digby’s Letters, appended to “The Gunpowder Treason,” 
published by the Bishop of Lincoln in 1679. 

f Sir Edward Coke in his speech on the trials says that “ John 
Talbot of Grafton was at least in case of misprision of high treason 
but he probably referred to his omission to arrest some of the 
conspirators who came to his house after he was informed of their 
treason. 


DEPARTURE OF CONSPIRATORS FROM DUNCHURCH. Ill 

and apprehension of future severities on account of 
religion, would lead to join in any movement designed 
to establish a Roman Catholic ascendency in England. 

It was of the utmost importance to the conspirators 
that they should be prompt in their measures, and 
accordingly they departed from Dunchurch before 
ten o’clock the same night, for the house of John 
Grant at Norbrook. On their way thither they broke 
open the stable of a breaker of cavalry horses at 
Warwick in the middle of the night, and took from 
thence nine or ten horses, leaving their own tired 
horses in their places.* From Norbrook, Catesby’s 
servant, Bates, was despatched to Coughton, which 
was distant only about •ten miles, with a letter from 
Sir Everard Digby to Father Garnet, containing the 
account of their failure, and informing him of their 
present design. This circumstance afterwards formed 
a material part of the evidence in proof of Garnet’s 
privity to the design of the conspirators. The party 
halted only an hour or two at Norbrook, for the purpose 
of further arming themselves and refreshing their 
horses, and immediately proceeded through Alcester 
on their way to the house of Robert Winter at Hud- 
dington, where they arrived about two o’clock in the 
afternoon of Wednesday, the 6th of November. Here 
they were joined by Thomas Winter, who had left 

* Kook wood says, in liis examination of December 2nd, 1605, that 
“before they came to Warwick, he left them and rode before to 
Mr. Grant’s house; and seeing he was so well horsed as he was 
(he having fifteen or sixteen good horses), he meant not to adventure 
himself in stealing of any.” 


112 THEIR DISTRESS AND DESPONDENCY. 

London the day before. From Huddington, Thomas 
Winter and Stephen Littleton, by the general consent 
of the party, were despatched to Mr. Talbot of Grafton, 
to invite him to join with them; but the old gentle¬ 
man received them roughly, refused to admit them 
into his house, and dismissed them with threats and 
reproaches. At sunrise the next morning, Thursday 
the 7th of November, the whole company proceeded to 
Whewell Grange, a seat of Lord Windsor’s, where they 
seized a large store of arms and armour, and went on 
the same night to Holbeach, the house of Stephen 
Littleton, on the borders of Staffordshire. 

Despondency By this time the enthusiasm of most of the members 
tfves 6 Fugl of this desperate expedition Had grown cold. The]* 
had traversed a distance of about sixty miles in two 
days, over bad and broken roads, in rainy and inclement 
weather. Their numbers, which at no time exceeded 
one hundred men, were now reduced to sixty by 
frequent desertions; which circumstance obliged the 
gentlemen to watch by turns night and day, with 
loaded pistols, and a determination to shoot any man 
who attempted to steal from his quarters. Notwith¬ 
standing all their endeavours to check it, however, it is 
clear from the numerous examinations of stragglers 
taken during the march, that the desertion hourly 
continued. The hopes they originally entertained of 
accessions to their numbers had hitherto wholly failed : 
“Not one man,” says Sir Everard Digby,* “ came to 


* Digby’s Examination, December 2nd, 1G05.'—State-Paper Office. 


PURSUED BY THE SHERIFF. 


113 


take our part, though we had expected so many.” 
The Roman Catholic gentry drove them from their 
doors, reproaching them with having brought ruin and 
disgrace on the Roman Catholic cause by their ill- 
advised enterprise; while the common people stood 
and gazed upon their irregular train as they passed 
through the towns and villages, evincing anything but 
a disposition to join them. It is related in some of the 
examinations that while thdy were ransacking Lord 
Windsor’s house for arms, some twenty or thirty of the 
country-people, attracted by curiosity, came round 
them. Catesby asked the countrymen “ Whether they 
would go along with them ?” One of them answered, 
that “ if they knew what they meant to do, it might 
be they would.” Catesby said, “We are for God and 
the country.” Whereupon the countryman placed his 
back against the wall, and set up his staff before him, 
saying, that “ they were for King James as well as for 
God and the country, and would not go against him.” 
And upon this all the countrymen left the place.* 

The presence of Sir Richard Walsh, the Sheriff of 
Worcestershire, who had closely pursued them the 
whole of Thursday, with many gentlemen of the 
country, and the posse comitatus, added not a little to 
their uneasiness and distress. At Holbeach they re¬ 
solved to make a stand against their pursuers, who, 
though more numerous than themselves, were by no 
means so well armed and mounted; and accordingly 

* Thomas Maunders Examination, November 1605; Ellis’s 
Examination, November 21st, 1605.—State-Paper Office. 


114 


EXPLOSION AT HOLBEACH. 


they spent a great part of Thursday night in preparing 
the house for an assault. Early the following morning 
Stephen Littleton secretly escaped from Holbeach. Sir 
Everard Digby also here forsook the enterprise, intend¬ 
ing, as he says, to have hastened some succours which 
were expected from other Roman Catholics. He was 
overtaken near Dudley by the hue and cry, and being 
immediately recognized, surrendered himself and was 
conveyed to London. 

Explosion of Soon after the departure of Littleton and Sir E. 

Holbeach. Digby, an accident happened which had nearly proved 
fatal to several of the principal conspirators. A quantity 
of powder, which had been carried in an open cart from 
Lord Windsor’s the day before, had been wetted in 
passing through a ford of the Stour, which had been 
swelled by the heavy rain. Catesby, Rookwood, and 
John Grant were occupied in drying it upon a platter 
over a large fire, when a coal falling amongst it, the 
whole blew up with a tremendous explosion. A 
remarkable circumstance relating to this accident was 
mentioned by Sir Edward Coke in his speech on one 
of the trials. The platter upon which the powder was 
drying was laid near a large linen bag full of gunpowder, 
which was carried out through the roof by the explo¬ 
sion without being ignited, and was afterwards taken 
up whole in the court-yard. The quantity of powder 
in the bag was sufficient, had it taken fire, to have 
burst the house asunder, and to have destroyed every 
individual within it. As it was, those of the party 
who were nearest to the powder were severely burned; 


THE MISGIVINGS OF CONSCIENCE. 


115 


and Catesby and several others were at first supposed to 
be killed; upon which the elder Wright, running up 
to Catesby, clasped him round the body, exclaiming, 
“Woe worth the time that we have seen this day !” 
and called for the rest of the powder that he might set 
fire to it and blow up themselves and the house 
together.* Superstition mixed its horrors with the 
general amazement and consternation produced by this 
accident. It seemed to some of those wretched men 
to be a judgment from Heaven, that they should perish 
by the very means they had provided for the destruc¬ 
tion of so many of their fellow-creatures. Catesby him¬ 
self lost his firmness, and expressed his fears that God 
disapproved of their project ;j* and Rookwood and others, 
“ perceiving God to be against them, all prayed before 
the picture of our Lady, and confessed that the act was 
so bloody as they desired God to forgive them.”! 
Robert Winter, who from the beginning had shown a 
faint heart in the enterprise, was now fully determined 
to forsake it. On the night before the intended meet¬ 
ing of Parliament, his imagination being excited by 
constantly dwelling upon the horrible catastrophe which 
w T as in preparation, displayed to him in a dream several 
faces strangely blackened and disfigured, and he ima¬ 
gined that he could recognise in the swoln and distorted 
features of Catesby and his companions after the explo- 

* Thomas Bates’s Confession, December 4th, 1605.—State-Paper 
Office. 

f Stephen Littleton’s Examination, January 17th, 1605-6.—State- 
Paper Office. 

X Kookwood’s Examination (without date).—State-Paper Office. 


116 


ASSAULT AGAINST HOLBEACH HOUSE. 


sion at Holbeach the same ghastly visages which, since 
his dream, had continually haunted his memory.* He 
went away the same morning soon after the accident, 
and joined Stephen Littleton in a wood about a mile 
from Holbeach. Thomas Bates, Catesby’s servant, also 
escaped from Holbeach the same morning; he was 
arrested a few days afterwards in Staffordshire, and 
being sent to London, became by the disclosures he 
made the most material witness against Father Garnet 


Holbeach 
assaulted, 
and Catesby, 
Percy, and 
the two 
Wrights 
killed. 


and Father Green way. 

About the middle of the day Sir Richard Walsh 
arrived at Holbeach, and, surrounding the house with 
his company, summoned the rebels in the King’s name 
to lay down their arms and surrender. Upon their 
refusal to comply with this requisition, the Sheriff 
ordered a part of the house to be set on fire, and an 
assault to be made on the gates of the court-yard. In 
crossing the court Thomas Winter was shot through 
the arm by a cross-bow arrow and disabled; upon 
which Catesby, who was standing at one of the doors, 
called to him, “ Stand by me, Tom, and we will die 
togetherthe two next shots mortally wounded both 
the Wrights ;f after which Catesby and Percy, who 
were standing back to back, were both shot through the 
body with two bullets from one musket.J Catesby, 


* Fawkes’s Examination, January 26tli, 1605-6.—State-Paper 
Office. 

f Tlios. Winter’s Confession in the History of the Gunpowder 
Plot. 

X This shot was fired by one of the sheriff's men, named John 
Streete, who received a pension of two shillings a-day from the 


CATESBY AND PERCY KILLED. 117 

feeling himself mortally wounded, crawled into the 
house upon his hands and knees, and, seizing an image 
of the \ irgin which stood in the vestibule, clasped it 
in his arms and expired.* Stow relates that Catesby, 
when dying, declared “ that the plot and practice of 
this treason was only his, and that all others were but 
his assistants, chosen by himself to that purpose. And 
that the honour thereof only belonged unto himself.” 
Percy was taken prisoner, but died of his wounds the 
next day. Rookwood, who had been severely hurt by 
the powder in the morning, was shot through the right 
arm by a musket, and wounded in the body by a pike. 
At last the assailants rushing into the court-yard soon 
overpowered the feeble resistance opposed to them, and 
made prisoners of the whole party.f 


King for this service. There is a warrant in the State-Paper Office 
for the payment of the arrears of this pension, in the third year 
of the reign of Charles I., which is described to be “for that 
extraordinary service performed in killing those two traitors, Piercie 
and Catesbie, with two bulletts at one shott out of his muskett." 

* Greenway’s MS. 

f Sir Thos. Lawley, who attended the Sheriff of Worcestershire 
on this occasion, says, in a letter to the Earl of Salisbury—“ One of 
my servants was the first man that entered upon them at Holbeach, 
and took Thomas Winter alive and brought him unto me, whom I 
delivered to the sheriff, and thereupon hasted to revive Catesby and 
Percy and the two Wrights, who lay deadly wounded on the ground, 
thinking by the recovery of them to have done unto his Majesty 7 
better service than by suffering them to die. But such was the 
extreme disorder of the baser sort, that while I with my men took 
up one of the languishing traitors, the rude people stripped the rest 
naked; and their wounds being many and grievous, and no surgeon 
at hand, they became incurable, and so died.”—Add. MSS. in the 
British Museum, No. 6178, p. 565. 



118 


ADVENTURES OF WINTER AND LITTLETON. 


Escape of 
Robert 
Winter and 
Stephen 
Littleton. 


Keyes was arrested on the same day in Warwick¬ 
shire ; he had not accompanied the rebels on their 
march from Dunchurch to Holbeach, but was probably 
on his way to join them when he was apprehended. 
In what manner he had been employed, after he parted 
from Rookwood on the 5th of November, is uncertain. 
He was immediately sent to Sir Richard Walsh, and 
was soon afterwards conveyed to London, with the sur¬ 
vivors of those who had been engaged at Holbeach. 

It has already been stated that Robert Winter and 
Stephen Littleton escaped from Holbeach on the morn¬ 
ing of the accident with gunpowder, and before the 
assault upon the house by Sir Richard Walsh.* Being 
well provided with money on their first escape, they 
bribed a farmer, near Rowley Regis, in Staffordshire, 
to secrete them in his barn. This man was a tenant 
of Humphrey Littleton, who, though he had left 
the party at Dunchurch, was a concealed friend of 
the conspirators. Here they continued some time; 
but suspicion being raised in the country by the 
incautious conduct of the farmer, they were compelled 
to quit this asylum; and, after concealing themselves 

* The particular adventures of these two ill-fated fugitives, who 
contrived for upwards of two months to elude the vigilant search 
which was instituted for them, by wandering up and down the 
country in disguise, are related in a most interesting contemporary 
narrative, entitled, ‘ A true historicall Declaration of the Flight and 
Escape of Robert Winter, Esquier, and Stephen Littleton, Gent., 
when the rest of the traytours were apprehended; the straunge 
manner of their living in concealment so long time; how they 
shifted to several places, and in the end were descryed and taken at 
Hagley, being the house of Mrs. Littleton.”—Harleian MSS., No. 
360. 


THEY ARE APPREHENDED AT HAGLEY. 119 

at several farm-houses, which they left respectively 
as they received intimation from Humphrey Littleton 
that they were no longer safe there, they came 
on new year’s day, in the morning very early, to the 
house of one Perkes at Hagley. Perkes, who knew 
them, and had probably been instructed by Humphrey 
Littleton, concealed then in a barley mow in his 
barn, where they were harboured and relieved by him 
for several weeks. 

At length, however, their humble place of refuge 
was accidentally discovered by a labouring man to whom 
their persons were known; and as a reward had been 
offered by the Royal Proclamation for their apprehen¬ 
sion, they were sensible that there was no longer safety 
for them in Perkes’s barn. Humphrey Littleton, there¬ 
fore, removed them to Hagley House, at that time the 
residence of Mrs. Littleton, his brother’s widow, who 
was absent. But being recognised by the servants, 
the town was raised against them, and they were 
apprehended.* Stephen Littleton and Robert Winter 
were immediately sent to London and committed to 
the Tower, and Humphrey Littleton was sent together 
with Perkes and his servants to Worcester charged 
with misprision of treason in harbouring them after 
the Royal Proclamation. It will be seen in the sequel 
that Humphrey Littleton afterwards performed an 
important part in this drama by declaring circum- 

* The cook at Hagley, John Fynwood, received an annuity of 
forty marks in consideration of his services on this occasion.— 
Rymer’s Feed., vol. xvi. p. 640. 


120 APPREHENSION AND EXAMINATION OF TRESHAM. 


Tresham’s 
apprehension 
and examina¬ 
tion. 


stances which incidentally led to the discovery of the 
retreat of Garnet the Jesuit. 

It has been above stated, that for some weeks before 
the discovery of the plot, Tresham had taken no part 
in the consultations of the conspirators, and reasons 
have been suggested which appear to designate him as 
the person by whom the discovery was made. Upon 
the apprehension of Fawkes, he remained in his usual 
place of abode in London, showed himself openly in 
the streets, and even went to the Council and tendered 
his active services to suppress and apprehend the 
rebels.* He was not arrested until the end of a week 
after the discovery of the Plot. This delay may not 
be altogether without significance. It is quite clear 
from an examination of' Fawkes, taken on the 7th of 
November, that the Government at that time knew 
that Tresham was involved in the conspiracy, for his 
name is directly suggested by the examiners together 
with those of Catesby, Eookwood, Grant, and the two 
Wrights; yet although a proclamation was issued on 
that very day against the others, Tresham’s name is 
not mentioned in it.f Again, on the 9th of November, 
Fawkes expressly mentions him as being a full 
accomplice in the plot; still he was suffered for several 
days to remain at large, and was not arrested' and 
taken before the Council for examination until the 


# Stows Chronicle, p. 880; Sir E. Hoby’s Letter to Sir Thomas 
Edmondes. 

f Fawkes's Examination, November 7tli, 1605. State-Paper 
Office. Stow’s Chronicle, p. 880. 


TRESHAM’S DECLARATION. 


121 


12th of November. No reason for this exceptional 
course in the case of Tresham is distinctly perceptible; 
but it certainly strengthens the conjecture that he 
was, in some way or other, instrumental in discovering 
the Plot to the Government. In his first statement 
before the Commissioners, Tresham admitted that he 
had seen and conversed with both Catesby and 
Thomas Winter a few days only before the 5th of 
November, but declined to state the subject of their 
conversation ; and upon his “ being told that he stood 
accused by principal actors in this treason, and there¬ 
fore that it behoved him to speak clearly,”* he answers 
enigmatically, that he “ wished their lordships all knew 
what he had said or done in the business so as he might 
not be the teller of it.”f On the following day he sends 
to the Council a long and laboured declaration, J of' 
which the following is a summary :—he states, “ that 
he was informed of the plot by Catesby about the 
15th of October preceding; that he discouraged it in 
the strongest terms, and finding that he could not 
induce him to abandon it totally, he urged Catesby 
at least to defer the execution of it till the end of the 
session of Parliament, and in the mean time to secure 

* “ Some men,” says Selden, in liis Table Talk, “ before they come 
to their trial, are cozened to confess upon examination. Upon this 
trick they are made to believe somebody has confessed before them, 
and then they think it a piece of honour to be clear and ingenuous ; 
and that destroys them.” 

f Examination of Francis Tresham, November 12th, 1G05.—State- 
Paper Office. 

x Declaration of Francis Tresham, November 13th.—State-Paper 
Office. 

G 


122 


TRESHAM’S DECLARATION. 


himself and his companions by passing over to the 
Low Countries; that he told Catesby that if he wanted 
means for his expenses in the interval, he should 
spend what he would upon his purse ; that Catesby 
said he could not finally determine upon any alteration 
of the scheme without the consent of Percy, who was 
absent in the north; that he afterwards met Catesby at 
Barnet, when Catesby declared that Percy would be 
in London that night, and that he had determined to 
go away the following day if Percy agreed to it; that 
upon Tresham’s again offering him the use of his 
purse, Catesby said that if he decided to go to Flanders 
he would send Thomas Winter to him for 10(P; that 
the next day Thomas Winter came to him in Lincoln’s 
Inn for the money, which he gave him, and was 
assured by him that it was settled between Catesby 
and himself, that they should depart immediately, 
and that the master of the ship had all things in 
readiness, and had appointed the creek where they were 
to embark.” “After this time,” says Tresham, “I 
never heard more of them, until the news ran over the 
town upon Tuesday; when, upon the salvation of my 
soul, I did think they had been beyond sea, and listened 
after their safe arrival, intending then to have taken a 
course to have given the state advertisement thereof by 
some unknown means. This was the only way I could 
resolve on to overthrow the action, to save their lives, 
and to preserve my own fortunes, life, and reputation ; 
and in this I saw no great difficulty, for they had all 
nothing left here which a ship could not carry, and they 


DECLARATIONS OF OTHER CONSPIRATORS. 123 

had only made themselves means to live until the first 
day of the Parliament; and if they had not been over¬ 
thrown by this course, their debts and wants would 
have driven them out of the kingdom. Thus neither 
my hand, purse, or head was either in the acting or con¬ 
triving of this plot; but being lately and unexpectedly 
fallen into it, I sought, by all the arguments I could, 
to dissuade it: the silence I used was only to deliver 
myself from that infamous brand of an accuser, and to 
save Catesby’s life, which in all true rules 1 was bound 
to do.” 

This artful declaration is dated the 13th of No¬ 
vember ; on the 15th he was committed to the Tower, 
and it does not appear that he was examined again 
until the 29 th of November. 

In the meantime the conspirators who had been 
taken at Holbeach had arrived in London, and from 
their statements, and especially from that of Thomas 
Winter, a much clearer light was thrown upon the 
details of the transaction. Winter in particular 
declared that the Lord Mounteagle, Catesby, Tresham, 
and Father Greenway had all been privy to his 
mission to the King of Spain, about a year before 
the death of Elizabeth. The conspirators at this 
time appear to have known that Greenway had 
escaped beyond sea, and therefore they made no 
scruple to mention his name. But the Government 
suspected, or might perhaps be informed by Mount- 
eagle, that to this treasonable correspondence with 
Spain Father Garnet, as well as Father Greenway, was 

G 2 ' 


m 


ILLNESS AND DEATH OF TRESHAM. 




a party. Finding, however, that the fact could not be 

extracted from Winter, who firmly denied it, the 

Commissioners determined to have recourse to Tresham, 

who, upon much pressure by those who examined 

him, and after much prevarication on his own part, 

confessed “ that Greenway and Garnet, as well as 

Lord Mounteagle and Catesby, were acquainted with 

Trcsham’s the fact and the purpose of that mission.”* Possibly 

respecting he may have considered, at the time he made this 
Garnet, # ; 

admission, that Garnet was protected from the conse¬ 
quences of his implication in a treason committed in a 
former reign by the general pardon granted by James 
upon his accession. 

Soon after his imprisonment this miserable man 
was attacked by a dangerous and painful disease, which 
had reduced him to the extremity of weakness, and 
rendered it necessary that his wife and a confidential 
servant should constantly attend him. On the 15th of 
December, the Lieutenant of the Tower writes to Lord 
Salisbury, “ Tresham is worse and worse. To-morrow 
I have appointed a consultation for him of three 
doctors. If he escape, it must be by great care and 
good providence that he may die of that kind of death 
he most deserveth.” He died in the Tower on the 
23rd of December, and his death is thus announced 
by the Lieutenant to the Earl of Salisbury :—“ As I 
certified your lordship there was no hope of recovery 

* This is the examination of the 13th November 1605, in the 
original of which the erasure of Lord Mounteagle’s name appears. 
See ante , p. 77, note. 


TRESHAM’S RETRACTATION RESPECTING GARNET. 125 

in Tresham, so it will please you to understand that Tresham’s 
he died this night, about two of the clock after 
midnight, with very great pain; for though his spirits 
were much spent, and his body dead, a-lay above two 
hours in departing. I find his friends were marvellous 
confident, if he had escaped this sickness, and have 
given out words in this place that they feared not the 
course of justice.”* 

During his last sickness in the Tower, Tresham was His retracta 

tion of his 

much disturbed by the thought that he had placed admission 

J c 1 respecting 

Garnet in some danger by the admission he had m,ade Garnet 
respecting him; and a few days before his deatli he 
dictated to his servant Vavasour, a declaration by 
which he retracted, in the most solemn manner, that 
part of his former confession which implicated Father 
Garnet in the mission of Winter to the King of Spain. 

This paper he afterwards signed with his own hand, 
calling Vavasour and a female servant to witness his 
signature; and two or three hours only before he died, 
he gave it to Mrs. Tresham, charging her to “ deliver it 
with her own hands to the Earl of Salisbury.” In this 
paper t he says that he made the former statement respect¬ 
ing Garnet only “ to avoid ill-usage,” and then declares 
upon his salvation , that he knew nothing of Garnet’s 
privity to the sending of Thomas Winter into Spain; 
and adds that he had not “ seen Garnet for sixteen 
years before, nor never had letter nor message from 

# Letter from Sir William Waad to Lord Salisbury, 23rd Decem¬ 
ber, 1G05, State-Paper Office. 

f The original Declaration is at the State-Paper Office. 


126 TRESHAM’S RETRACTATION RESPECTING GARNET. 

him.” There is no doubt that this clying declaration 
was wilfully false. Father Garnet, Mrs. Anne Yaux, 
and many witnesses, declare that Garnet had been 
with Tresham continually until within a lew days 
before the discovery of the Plot, not only at White 
Webbe’s, at Erith, and in London, but also at his own 
house in Northamptonshire. Some time after her 
husband’s death, and shortly before Garnet’s trial, 
Mrs. Tresham sent the paper to Sir Walter Cope, • 
inclosed in the following note:— 

“ Sir,—My husband, in his last sickness, commanded 
me to deliver this note inclosed unto my Lord of Salis¬ 
bury. My sorrows are such that I am altogether unfit 
to come abroad, wherefore I would entreat you to 
deliver it yourself unto my lord that I may have my 
husband’s desire fulfilled therein; wherein you shall 
much pleasure me to do it for me. So I end your 
friend, Ann Tresham.” 

This note, with its inclosure, being delivered to 
Lord Salisbury, Mrs. Tresham and Vavasour were 
examined, and both of them declared the facts respect¬ 
ing the retractation to be as above related. Sir 
Edward Coke thus reports the result of this examina¬ 
tion to Lord Salisbury. 

“ Right Honourable,—We have examined this morn¬ 
ing William Vavasour, formerly examined by Sir 
William Waad, and Mrs. Tresham herself. Vavasour 
hath directly retracted his confession, in that he 
formerly said that the note was of Mrs. Tresliam’s 


UNFOUNDED SUGGESTION OF POISON. 


127 


hand-writing, but now confesseth that he wrote it ex 
dictamine of his master; and therewith agreeth Mrs. 
Tresham. This note is agreed by them both to be 
written a day before his death, and he dying on the 
23rd day of December, about two o’clock in the morn¬ 
ing, in that night he delivered the note to his wife to 
be delivered to your lordship; and both agree that he 
caused it to be written of his own motion, without the 
persuasion of any. 

“ This is the fruit of equivocation (the book * whereof 
was found in Tresham’s desk)—to affirm manifest 
falsehoods upon his salvation, in ipso articulo mortis. 
It is true that no man may judge in this case, for inter 
pontem et fontem , he might find grace; but it is the 
most fearful example that I ever knew to be made so 
evident as now this is. And so I humbly take my 
leave, and ever remain your lordship’s most bounden, 
24 th March , 1605. Edward Coke.” 

It is common with Roman Catholic writers to ascribe 
the death of Tresham to violence or poison. There is 
no evidence in support of this imputation; and the 
circumstance that his wife and servant were constantly 
with him in the Tower, seems to furnish a strong 

7 C 1 

argument against its truth. In general it may be 

* This book was afterwards the subject of much controversy. It 
was originally entitled, “ A Treatise of Equivocationbut in the 
copy found in Tresham’s desk when he was first apprehended, the 
title was altered in Garnet’s handwriting, and it was called, “ A 
Treatise against Lying and fraudulent Dissimulation.” That 
identical copy, with Garnet’s annotations, is at present in the 
Bodleian Library ; and from that copy the Treatise was printed and 
published in 1851. 


128 


UNFOUNDED SUGGESTION OF POISON. 


remarked that although under the Plantagencts the 
“ Towers of Julius ” may have been “ fed with many 
a foul and midnight murder,” yet such tragedies 
were less probable under the Tudors and the Stuarts. 
Nor can any sufficient motive be assigned for the 
assassination of Tresham, as the Government, if they 
wished to destroy him, had abundant evidence to 
procure and to justify his judicial condemnation. 
The Jesuit historians insinuate that a sufficient reason 
for secretly disposing of him might be found in the 
unwillingness of the Government to risk, by the 
public trial of Tresham, the exposure of the machinery 
by which, through Lord Mounteagle, he revealed the 
Plot to the Council. But the suggestion of this 
machinery is merely a speculation, and is unsupported 
by any express evidence of the fact; and although it 
is not improbable that, for some reason or other which 
it is now perhaps impossible to detect, the precise facts 
respecting Tresham’s connection with this Plot and 
its discovery were carefully wrapped in mystery by the 
Government, it is hardly credible that in those times 
statesmen would have had recourse to the murder of 
a prisoner in the Tower for the purpose of concealing 
a state secret. 


FURTHER EXAMINATION OF FAWKES. 


129 


CHAPTER Y. 

Fawkes’s examinations renewed—His resolution—Probably tortured 
—Declares the names of the other Conspirators—Examination of 
prisoners taken at Holbeach—Trial of the conspirators—Their 
Execution—Remarks on the Trials — On the Plot generally — 

English Roman Catholics not in general privy to it. 

The business of the examination of the different Examination 

of the 

prisoners, and the numerous persons who could throw Prisoners - 
light upon the conspiracy, was imposed in the usual 
manner upon certain Commissioners named by the 
King from the Privy Council, and was conducted by 
them with all the zeal and industry which the im¬ 
portance of the subject required. On the morning 
after his arrest, and also on the three following days, 

Fawkes was repeatedly examined, not only by the Fawkes’s 
Lords Commissioners, but by the Lord Chief Justice ation. 
Popham, Sir Edward Coke, and Sir William Waad, 
the Lieutenant of the Tower. He maintained on those 
examinations a perfect consistency in his account of 
his own acts and intentions ; but artifices, promises, and 
threats, were unavailing to draw from him the names 
of his confederates. At first he endeavoured to 
conceal his own name and family, but a letter directed 
to himself being found upon his person he readily 

G 3 


130 


FAWKES’S EXAMINATION. 


admitted * that lie had assumed the name of Johnson 
for the purposes of concealment, and that his real name 
was Guido Fawkes. Being urged in one of the ex¬ 
aminations with “ the late horrible practice against the 
King, he answered that it was past, and he was sorry 
for it, for that he now perceived that God did not 
concur with it.” He told the Lieutenant of the Tower 
that “ since he undertook that action, he did every day 
pray to God he might perform that which might be for 
the advancement of the Catholic faith, and the saving 
of his own soul.”f When urged that his denial of 
the names of his companions was useless, because by 
their flight they had been sufficiently discovered, “If 
that be so,” said he, “ it would be superfluous for me 
to declare them, seeing by that circumstance they have 
named themselves.”} “ This morning,” says Sir 
William Waad, the Lieutenant of the Tower, in a letter 
to Salisbury, written two days only after Fawkes’s 
apprehension, “ when Johnson was ready, (who hath 
taken such rest this night as a man void of all 
trouble of mind,) I repaired unto him, and told him, if 
he held his resolution of mind to be so silent, he must 
think the resolution in the State was as constant to 
proceed with him with that severity which was meet 
in a case of that consequence; and for my own part I 
protested I would never give him over, until I had 

* Fawkes’s Examination, November 7th, 1605.—State-Paper 
Office. 

f Letter of Waad to the Earl of Salisbury, November 7tli, 1605.— 
Add. MSS. in the British Museum, No. 6178, p. 539. 

X MS. Narrative in the State-Paper Office; 


FAWKES’S EXAMINATION. 


131 


gotten the inward secret of his thoughts and all Iris 
complices; and therefore I wished him to prepare 
himself. He confessed ‘ he had both made a solemn 
vow and oath, and received the sacrament upon it to 
perform it, and not to disclose it, nor to discover any 
of his friends,’ and concluded, “ he knew not what 
torture might do, but otherwise he was resolved to 
keep his vow, further discourse he used of canons, 
and such arguments of learning, as in our judgments 
he appeareth to be of better understanding and dis¬ 
course than before we conceived him to be.” # “ Not¬ 

withstanding,” says Lord Salisbury, in his despatch f 
to Sir Charles Cornwallis, “ he confesseth all things 
of himself, and denieth not to have some partners 
in this particular practice, yet could no threatening 
of torture draw from him any other language than 
this;—that he is ready to die, and rather wisheth ten 
thousand deaths than willingly to accuse his master 
or any other; until, by often reiterating examinations, 
we pretending to him that his master was apprehended, 
he hath come -to plain confession that his master kept 
the key of the cellar while he was abroad, and had 
been in it since the powder was laid there, and inclusive 
confessed him a principal actor in the same.”J 

* Letter from Sir W. Waad to Lord Salisbury, November 7th, 
1605.—Add. MSS. in the British Museum, No. 6178, p. 539. 

f Winwood’s Memorials, vol. ii. p. 170. 

+ “With whom did you leave the key of the cellar in your absence, 
when your master caused the billets to be laid in the cellar ? He 
answereth, he left the key with his master.”—Fawkes’s Examination, 
November 6th, 1605. 


132 


TORTURE THE PRACTICE OF THE TIMES 


Fawkes was 

probably 

examined 

under 

torture. 


By Roman Catholic writers it is generally stated 
that Fawkes’s admissions were procured by torture; 
and from the examinations of Garnet and other persons, 
it is clear that this was the impression at the time. 
In a manuscript history of the Plot, preserved in the 
Libraria Magliabechiana, at Florence, it is said “ that 
he was first suspended in the air by his thumbs,* and 
then placed on the rack, and as he still refused to name 
his accomplices he was stretched naked on a heated 
stone.” This is, however, merely fabulous. There is 
no doubt that, in the course of these “ reiterating ex¬ 
aminations ” mentioned by Lord Salisbury, the torture, 
which had been clearly threatened by the Lieutenant 
of the Tower, was, in some shape or other, used to break 
his stubborn resolution. There is indeed no direct 
and positive evidence on this subject, excepting the 
well-known authority given by James to apply the 
rack to him; j* but the extraction of confession by 
such means was the practice of the times. From the 
minutes of the Privy Council it is manifest that during 
the reigns of Henry VIII., and Edward VI., Mary, 
and Elizabeth, it was the daily course to force confes¬ 
sions, not only of treason, but of' murder, horse-stealing, 
and other great felonies by torture; and there are 
several authentic instances of its application at this 
very period. Lord Bacon expressly admits that “ by 

* Sir Edward Hoby, in the letter to Sir Thomas Edmondes, above 
cited, says that “Fawkes was never on the rack, but only by his 
arms upright.” 

t See Criminal Trials, vol. i. p. 1G. 


IN CRIMES AGAINST THE STATE. 


133 


the law of England it was used in the highest cases of 
treason for discovery, though not for evidence.”* 
Selden, although he condemns the absence of all rule 
in the application of the rack in England, denies 
neither the existence of the practice nor its legality ;f 
and Dr. Abbott mentions it as the common course 
where it becomes necessary, to “ press out confes¬ 
sions of crimes by torture. ”{ The same writer, 
who was a clergyman of high reputation, and after¬ 
wards Bishop of Salisbury, even laments that Garnet 
was not examined upon the rack; and says, that 
without doubt if that had been done, the fact of 
his criminal privity to the plot might have been 
obtained from his own mouth. It would be unreason¬ 
able, therefore, to suppose that the torture was omitted 
to “press out a confession” in the case of Fawkes, 
who had avowed his own share in an attempt upon the 
life of the King and some hundreds of the most im¬ 
portant men in the state, and declared that several 
others were principal agents in it, whose names he 
refused to discover. The national safety, and even the 
preservation of any government in the country, might 
depend upon obtaining this information; and therefore 
if the application of torture to force the statement of' 

* Treatise of the Pacification of the Church. 

f Table Talk, cit. Trial. 

+ “ Speciales delegati, viri nonnumquam honorati et nobiles, a 
quibus inquiruntur et examinantur omnia, qui confessiones scelerum 
vel interrogate eliciimt, vel arguments et testimoniis evincunt, vel, 
ubi opus est, tormentis exprimunt."—Antilogia adversus Apologiam 
Andrea Eudamon-Joannis, cap. i. 


134 


FAWKES REFUSES TO DECLARE 


facts necessarily known to the person examined, be 
ever justifiable, it would be justifiable in such a case as 
the refusal of Fawkes to disclose his accomplices. On 
other points he seems at once to have unfolded all he 
knew; but for three days he maintained his resolution 
to make no disclosures, which might involve other 
persons than himself. 

On the 8th of November, Sir William Waad writes 
to Lord Salisbury as follows :— 

“ I do think it my duty to give your lordship daily 
account of what temper I find this fellow, who this 
day is in a most stubborn and perverse humour, as 
dogged as if he were possessed. Yesternight I had 
persuaded him to set down a clear narration of all his 
wicked plots, from the first entering on the same to 
the end they pretended, with the discourses and 
projects that were thought upon amongst them, which 
he undertook to do, and craved time this night to 
bethink him the better. But this morning he hath 
changed his mind, and is so sullen and obstinate as 
there is no dealing with him.” 

Notwithstanding these unfavourable symptoms, it 
appears that on the same day on which the above 
letter was written, Fawkes performed his promise 
to Sir William Waad, by making a full disclosure of 
the conspiracy, suppressing only the names of the 
parties engaged in it; for there is an examination, 
dated the 8 th of November, formally taken before all 
the Lords Commissioners, in which he gives a detailed 
narrative of the whole transaction, declaring the parti- 


THE NAMES OF HIS ACCOMPLICES. 135 

culars of the working at the mine, its abandonment 
upon hiring the cellar, the manner of bringing in the 
powder, his own journey into Flanders, and the 
projected seizure of Duke Charles and the Princess 
Elizabeth; but still carefully concealing all names, 
excepting that of Percy, whose hiring of the house 
and cellar had, as he well knew, already furnished 
sufficient proof against him. This paper, a copy of 
which only is to be found at the State-Paper Office, 
does not appear to have been signed by Fawkes. 

On the next day, Sir William Waad writes the 
following note to Lord Salisbury :— 

“ My honourable good Lord, 

“ I have prevailed so much at the length with my 
prisoner, by plying him with the best persuasions • I 
could use, as he hath faithfully promised me by nar¬ 
ration to discover to your lordship only all the secrets 
of his heart, but not to be set down in writing. Your 
lordship will not mislike the exception ; for when he 
hath confessed himself to your lordship, I will under¬ 
take he shall acknowledge it before such as you shall 
call, and then he will not make dainty to set his hand 
to it. Therefore it may please your good lordship, if 
any of the Lords do come with you, that at first your 
lordship will deal with him alone. He will conceal no 
name nor matter from your lordship, to whose ears he 
will unfold his bosom. And I know your lordship 
will think it the best journey you ever made upon so 
evil occasion. Thus in haste, I thank God my poor 


136 TORTURE PROBABLY USED TO COMPEL HIM. 

labour hath advanced a service of this importance. 
From the Tower of London, the 9th of November, 
1605. 

“ At the commandment of your Lordship, 

“ W. Gr. Waad.”* 

Whether Lord Salisbury had an interview with the 
prisoner in consequence of this information, is un¬ 
known ; but on the same 9th of November, Fawkes 
made a declaration in the presence of Sir Edward Coke, 
Mr. Forset, and Sir William Waad, in which he gave 
the names of all the sworn conspirators without reserve. 
There are, however, unusual circumstances connected 
with this declaration. It is entitled the “ The Decla¬ 
ration of Guido Fawkes, taken the 9th day of Novem¬ 
ber, and subscribed by him on the 10 th day, acknow¬ 
ledged before the Lords Commissioners.” The sig¬ 
nature of Fawkes is imperfect, consisting only of the 
Christian name, written in a faint and trembling hand. 
These appearances on the face of the declaration, taken 
in connection with the fact that the King had issued 
his warrant for the application of torture, make it 
highly probable that Fawkes continued his refusal to 
give the names of his confederates until the argument 
of the rack was applied.-]* His reluctance to make 
this disclosure must have been in great measure 
removed by the intelligence of the fate of the con- 

* The original notes from Waad to Lord Salisbury are still at 
the State-Paper Office. 

f See a fac-simile of this signature in Criminal Trials, vol i 

p. 18. 




EXAMINATION OF OTHER CONSPIRATORS. 137 

spirators in Worcestershire, which had arrived in 
London that day.* 

The conspirators taken at Holbeach were conveyed 
to London about the 15th of November, and com¬ 
mitted to the Tower. A course of diligent exami- 

O 

nation was immediately commenced by the Com¬ 
missioners, which continued without intermission until 
the trial of the prisoners. Though taken with arms 
in their hands, many of them, when examined 
separately, positively denied all participation in the 
Powder Plot; but upon being confronted with such of 
their companions as had previously confessed, they at 
once admitted their guilt. Thus Rookwood at first, 
“ upon his soul and conscience, and as he was a 
Catholic, denied that he was ever privy to the practice 
of the powderbut Keyes being sent for and inter¬ 
rogated in his presence, he at once, in the same depo¬ 
sition, confessed his participation in the Plot.f In 
his speech upon the trial, Sir Edward Coke, in ac¬ 
counting for the delay in bringing the prisoners to 
their arraignment, says that twenty-three several days 
had then been spent in examination. These laborious 
examinations were principally directed to ascertaining 
the extent to which the Roman Catholic nobility and 
the Jesuit priests were concerned in the conspiracy. 
With respect to the former, no positive evidence was 
obtained, and no threats, promises, or torture could 
draw from the principal conspirators the slightest in- 


Examination 
of the other 
Conspira¬ 
tors. 


* Salisbury’s Letter to Cornwallis, Winwood, vol. ii. p. 170. 
f Rookwood’s first Declaration (without date).—State-Paper Office- 


138 


DELAY OF THE TRIALS. 


culpation of the Jesuits. On the contrary, though 
several of them were induced to admit minute facts 
and circumstances, indifferent in themselves, but lead¬ 
ing the way to subsequent discoveries, they all strenu¬ 
ously denied that the priests were in any degree privy 
to the Plot. It was inexpedient, therefore, to bring the 
prisoners to trial and execution until all hope had 
vanished of procuring from them this important testi¬ 
mony. At last on the 13th of January, Thomas Bates, 
Catesby’s servant, yielded to the means which had 
been employed upon the other conspirators without 
effect, and revealed certain facts, which, if true, were 
amply sufficient to involve Garnet and Greenway in 
the guilt of the transaction. A royal proclamation* 
against Garnet, Gerrard, and Greenway, was issued 
on the 15th of January, and on the 27th of the same 
month the trial of the prisoners already arrested took 
place. 

There was, however, another reason for delaying 
the trial, to which the Attorney-General did not think 
it prudent to make any allusion. Baldwin, a Jesuit 
in Flanders, and Hugh Owen, a priest, had been im¬ 
plicated in various previous plots against the English 
government, and the suspicions of their acquaintance 
with the Powder Plot were confirmed by the statements 
of Fawkes and Winter. A requisition was therefore 
made to the Archduke in Flanders to deliver up these 
individuals to the English government, and also to 
secure the person of Sir William Stanley; upon which 
* Rymer’s Foedera, vol. xvi. p. 639. 


THE TRIALS. 


139 


much negotiation and correspondence passed through 
Sir Thomas Edmondes, the English ambassador at 
Brussels; and Lord Salisbury states to Sir T. Ed¬ 
mondes that the object was to confront them with the 
other conspirators, whose trials were delayed for that 
purpose. Eventually the Archduke, after referring to 
the King of Spain, refused to comply with the requi¬ 
sition. 

On the 27th of January 1606, Robert Winter, Trial of the 
Thomas Winter, Guy Fawkes, John Grant, Ambrose 
Rookwood, Robert Keyes, and Thomas Bates were 
tried in Westminster Hall before a Special Commission, 
consisting of the Earls of Nottingham, Suffolk, Worces¬ 
ter, Devonshire, Northampton, and Salisbury, the 
Lord Chief Justice of England, Sir John Popham, the 
Lord Chief Baron, Sir Thomas Fleming, and Sir 
Thomas Walmisley and Sir Peter Warburton, Justices 
of the Court of Common Pleas. The prisoners were 
brought from the Tower by water early in the morning, 
and remained in the court of Star-Chamber until the 
Lords Commissioners had taken their seats, imme¬ 
diately after which, they were brought into the Hall 
and placed on a scaffold in front of the Court. The 
Queen and the Prince were present privately, and it 
was said that the King was also in the Hall.* Seats 

# Sir Edward Hoby’s Letter to Sir Thomas Edmondes. Although 
these proceedings and the trial of Garnet naturally attracted much 
curiosity, not only in England but throughout Europe, no detailed 
report of either of them was ever published, until an attempt was 
made to complete the account of them by publishing the original 
evidence, as far as it could be ascertained, in the second volume of 
the Criminal Trials. The “ True and Perfect Relation,” printed by 


140 


TRIAL OF THE CONSPIRATORS. 


were provided for the members of both Houses of 
Parliament, and the eager curiosity of persons of all 
ranks to witness a spectacle of no common interest, 
naturally drew together an audience of no common 
magnitude.* 

All the prisoners pleaded not guilty, which excited 
some surprise, as each of them had previously con¬ 
fessed the principal facts charged in the indictment. 
Fawkes in particular was asked by the Lord Chief 
Justice, how lie could deny the truth of the accusation, 
as he had been taken in the cellar with the powder 
and combustibles, and in all his examinations had 
readily avowed his purpose of blowing up the Houses 
of Parliament, although he at first refused to name 
his accomplices. Fawkes replied that neither he nor 


the King’s printer, and carefully circulated by authority soon after 
the trials occurred, is neither “true” nor “perfect.” It contains 
merely a tiresome account 0 *of the long and vituperative speeches 
of Sii- Edward Coke and the Earl of Northampton, and only refers 
in general terms to the evidence produced and read on the occasion. 
Even the dull and tedious speeches are not reports of what was 
actually said; for there are anachronisms observable in them which 
obviously point to a date for their composition later than that of the 
trials. In fact, this “ Relation,” like the other tracts printed with it, 
was published, not for the purpose of conveying accurate information, 
but of suppressing and colouring the truth, and of circulating such 
a version of the story as suited the objects of the Government. 

* In the Journals ot the House ol Commons there is an entry, 
that, on January 28tli, 1605-6, the day after the trial, “ Mr. Lewkenor 
complained to the House that those of the Parliament House were 
so pressed that they could not hear what was said at the arraign¬ 
ment, and the place appointed for the House pestered with others 
not ot the Houseupon which complaint the House appointed 
a committee to examine where the fault was. 



SPEECH OF SIR EDWARD COKE. 


141 


any of his companions meant to deny that which had 
been voluntarily confessed by them, and which their 
conduct had rendered notorious throughout the realm. 
“ But this indictment,” added he, “ contains many 
other matters, which are not true, and which we ought 
not to countenance by our assent or silence. It is true 
that all of us were actors in this plot of powder, but it 
is not true that the holy fathers were privy to it as 
mentioned in the charge. We never opened the 
matter to them.” # 

The Attorney-General, Sir Edward Coke, then 
made a long and laboured harangue,! dilating, in his 

# Eud 0 emo. 11 -Joannes, Apologia pro Henrico Garneto, p. 200. 

f The following curious note from the Earl of Salisbury to Sir 
Edward Coke, containing directions for his speech on this occasion^ 
is taken from the original draft in Lord Salisbury’s handwriting at 
the State-Paper Office :— 

“ These things I am commanded to renew imto your memory. 
First, that you be sure to make it appear to the world that there 
was an employment of some persons to Spain for a practice of 
invasion, as soon as the Queen’s breath was out of her body. The 
reason is this for which the King doth urge it. He saith some 
men there are that will give out, and do, that only despair of the 
King’s courses on the Catholics, and his severity, draw all these to 
such works of discontentment; where by you it will appear, that 
before his Majesty’s face was ever seen, or that he had done 
anything in government, the King of Spain was moved, though he 
refused it, saying, ‘ He rather expected to have peace,’ &c. Next, 
you must, in any case, when you speak of the letter which was the 
first ground of discovery, absolutely disclaim that any of these wrote 
it, though you leave the further judgment indefinite who else it 
should be. Lastly, and that you must not omit, you must deliver, 
in commendation of my Lord Mounteagle, words to show how 
sincerely he dealt, and how fortunately it proved that he was the 
instrument of so great a blessing as this was. To be short, sir, you 
can remember how well the King, in his Book, did censure his lord¬ 
ship’s part in it; from which sense you are not to vary, but obiter (as 


142 


SIR EDWARD COKE’S SPEECH. 


peculiar phraseology, upon the enormity of this treason, 
which he characterized as not only prodigious and 
unnatural in itself, but most monstrous in its conception 
and birth as arising out of the dead ashes of former 
treasons. He then related at length the previous trea¬ 
sonable conspiracies to which several of the prisoners 
had been parties, declaring all of them to have been 
“planted and watered” by the Jesuits and English 
Roman Catholics. He justified the policy of the laws 
passed against the Roman Catholics in Queen Eliza¬ 
beth’s time, and contrasted the execution of those laws 
with the severe proceedings against Protestants under 
Mary. Upon this subject he stated that “ whereas in 
the five years of Queen Mary, there were cruelly put 
to death about three hundred persons for religion, in 
Queen Elizabeth’s time, by the space of forty-four 
years and upwards, there were for treasonable practices, 
executed in all not thirty priests, and not above five 
receivers and harbourers of them ; and for religion not 
any one.” He praised the lenity of James in having 
for sixteen months after his accession remitted all 
recusancy fines, suspended all prosecutions for religion, 
and bestowed advancement indiscriminately upon 


you know best how), to give some good echo of that particular action 
in that day of public trial of these men; because it is so lewdly 
given out that he was once of this plot of powder, and afterwards 
betrayed it all to me. 

“ This is but ex abundanti that I do trouble you; but as they come 
to my head or knowledge, or that I am directed, I am not scrupulous 
to send to you. 

“You must remember to lay Owen as foul in this as you can.” 



SIR EVERARD DIG BY SEPARATELY TRIED. 143 

Roman Catholics and Protestants, until driven to aban¬ 
don this indulgent course by the discovery of the 
treasons of the priests Watson and Clarke. All these 
treasons in the first year of King James’s reign he 
described as “joined together in their tails like 
Samson’s foxes, although their heads were severed.” 

After the speech of the Attorney General, the con¬ 
fessions of the several prisoners, taken before the Lords 
Commissioners, were openly read; and the Lord Chief 
Justice having made some remarks to the jury, a 
verdict was returned finding all the prisoners guilty. 

Sir Everard Digby was separately arraigned upon sir Everard 
an indictment taken in Northamptonshire, the overt Trial, 
acts of his connection with the treason consisting of his 
conferences with Catesby and his taking the oath of 
secrecy in that county. He pleaded guilty to the 
charge, stating that “ he had been led into this con¬ 
spiracy, not by any personal or ambitious views, but by 
his love and friendship to Catesby, for whose sake he 
had been ever ready to give up his life and all that he 
possessed. But his chief motive was his desire to restore 
the Roman Catholic religion, and his expectation that 
still harsher laws would be enacted for its suppression •• 
in the present parliament. Considering, therefore, 
that his religion was at stake he had not hesitated to 
sacrifice his estate, his name, his family and all earthly 
felicity whatever in the attempt to preserve it. He 
did not justify what he had done, but confessed that he 
deserved the severest punishment and the vilest death; 
but he implored that his punishment might fall upon 


144 


COKE’S SPEECH ON DIGBY’S TRIAL. 


himself alone, and not be transferred to his wife, his 
children or any of his relations, or his creditors. He 
prayed the King, the Lords, and all men to forgive him, 
and to accept his death as a sufficient expiation of his 
crime. Finally, he intreated the King that he would 
be pleased to order that he might be beheaded, instead 
of being executed in the ordinary mode.” 

Sir Edward Coke vindicated the penal laws which 
had been made, as well as those which were projected, 
on the ground of their necessity for the protection of 
the state from the treasonable attempts of discontented 
religionists. With respect to Digby’s petition for his 
estate, his wife and children, “ it came,” he said, “ with 
an ill grace from one who had designed the King, the 
Queen, the Princes, the nobles, and the whole kingdom 
to a swift and sudden destruction. He must have 
abandoned all nature, all humanity, all respect of laws, 
both divine and human, when he made no conscience 
to extirpate the whole nation under the cover of zeal 
for the Catholic religion. As therefore he had been 
content to despise the ruin of himself, his estate, his 
wife, his children for the Catholic cause, he should have 
his desire as it is expressed in the Psalm :* “ Let his 
children be fatherless, his wife a widow; let the 
children be continually vagabonds and beg; let there 
be none to extend mercy unto him, neither let there be 
any to favour his fatherless children; let his posterity 
be cut off, and in the generation following let their 
name be blotted out.” With respect to his petition for 

* Psalm cix. 


SPEECHES OF LORDS NORTHAMPTON AND SALISBURY. 145 

honour in the manner of his execution, he must not 
look for favour, who had so far abandoned religion and 
humanity in his action; on the contrary, lie had reason 
to admire the great moderation and mercy of the King 
in that for so exorbitant a crime, no new torture answer- 
able thereto, was devised to be inflicted upon him.”* 

At the conclusion of the Attorney General’s speech, 
the Earl of Northampton made a long address to Sir 
Everard Digby, in justification of the proceedings 
against the Roman Catholics in the time of the late 
Queen, and also since the King’s accession. The 
Earl of Northampton was a Roman Catholic, and the 
attention paid to him by James on his accession, by 
giving him, first a place in the Privy Council, and then 
the Wardenship of the Cinque Ports, and an earldom, 
occasioned much jealousy among the Protestant party. 
To obviate suspicions and to exempt him from the 
general stigma which attached to all Roman Catholics 
in consequence of the Plot, Northampton was indus¬ 
triously put forward on this trial and on that of Garnet; 
on both of which occasions very long and laboured 
harangues are attributed to him in praise of the conduct 
of the government, and in reprobation of the Plot. The 
Earl of Salisbury also addressed Sir Everard Digby, 
denying the imputations made upon the King’s con¬ 
sistency in the course which he had taken respecting 

* In a letter from Sir Edward Hoby to Sir Thomas Edmondes, 
dated February 10th, 1605-6, the former says, “There were some 
motions made in Parliament about a more sharp death for the gun¬ 
powder conspirators.” This circumstance is also mentioned in the 
Journals. 


II 


146 


EXECUTION OF THE CONSPIRATORS. 


religion since liis accession. He declared that James 

o 

had never given the least hope, much less promise, of 

toleration for the Roman Catholics. He also extolled 

% 

the wise and loyal conduct of Lord Mounteagle in deliver¬ 
ing the letter so speedily to him ; “wherein,” he said, 
“ he had displayed both his discretion and his fidelity.” 

When the Earl of Salisbury had ended, Serjeant 
Philips prayed the judgment of the Court upon the 
seven prisoners who had been found guilty by the 
jury, and upon Sir Everard Higby, who had confessed 
the indictment; and the Lord Chief Justice Popham 
pronounced judgment of High Treason upon all of 
them. 

Execution of The prisoners, after their condemnation and judg- 
spirators. ment, being sent back to the Tower, remained there 
till the Thursday following, on which day four of them, 
viz. Sir Edward Digby, Robert Winter, John Grant, 
and Thomas Bates, were drawn upon sledges and 
hurdles to a scaffold erected at the western end of St. 
Paul’s churchyard, where they were executed in pur¬ 
suance of their sentence. Great pains were taken in 
the city to render the spectacle of the execution as 
imposing as possible. Among other arrangements 
made in order to be prepared against any popular 
tumult, a precept issued from the Lord Mayor to the 
Alderman of each ward in the city, requiring him to 
“ cause one able and sufficient person, with a halberd 
in his hand, to stand at the door of every several 
dwelling-house in the open street in the way that the 
traitors were to be drawn towards the place of ex ecu- 


EXECUTION OF THE CONSPIRATORS. 147 

tion; there to remain from seven in the morning until 
the return of the Sheriff.”* 

Sir Everard Digby was executed first. “ He was,” 
says a contemporary account, “ a man of goodly perso¬ 
nage, and a manly aspect; yet might a wary eye, in 
the change of his countenance, behold an inward fear 
of death, for his colour grew pale and his eye heavy; 
nevertheless, he spoke with courage and distinctness. 
“His conscience had led him,” he said, “ into this 
action, which, in respect of his religion, he held no 
offence, but, in respect of the law, he confessed to be 
an offence, for which he asked forgiveness of God, of* 
the King, and the whole kingdom.” And so crossing 
himself, and refusing to join in the prayers of any 
clergymen except those of the Roman Catholics, 
submitted himself to the executioner. 

After him Robert Winter, Grant, and Bates, were 
executed in like manner. 

The next day, Thomas Winter, Ambrose Rookwood, 
Robert Keyes, and Guido Fawkes were drawn from the 
Tower to the old palace in Westminster, opposite to 
the Parliament House. Winter being the first brought 
to the scaffold said little, but protested that he died a 
true Catholic. 

Next him came Rookwood, who made a speech of 
greater length, confessing his offence to God in seek¬ 
ing to shed blood, and asking therefore mercy of the 
Divine Majesty;—his offence to the King, of whose 
majesty he likewise humbly asked forgiveness, and his 
* Repertories in the Town-Clerk’s Office. 

H 2 


148 


REMARKS ON THE TRIALS. 


Remarks on 
the Trials, 
and on the 
Conspiracy 
generally. 


offence to the whole State, of whom in general he asked 
forgiveness. He besought Gfod to bless the King, the 
Queen, and all his royal progeny, and that they might 
be restored to the true Catholic church, and long 
live to reign in peace and happiness over this kingdom. 
And so beseeching the King to be good to his wife and 
children, and protesting that he died a Roman Catholic, 
he went up the ladder. 

After him came Keyes, and last of all Fawkes, whose 
body being weak with torture and sickness, he was 
scarce able to go up the ladder. He made no long 
speech, but seeming to be sorry for his offence, asked 
forgiveness of the King and the State for his bloody 
intent. * 

In a legal point of view, the only observations which 
suggest themselves respecting the trials of the chief 
conspirators are such as are common to all the state 
prosecutions of the time. The evidence appears to 
have consisted entirely of the written declarations of 
the several prisoners, and of a servant of Sir Everard 
Digby, and it is evident, from the report of the pro¬ 
ceedings in the State Trials, that no witness was orally 
examined. Of the guilt of the accused there could not 
be the shadow of a doubt; indeed all of them had fully 
and circumstantially confessed their guilt before the 
trials, and though all, excepting Sir Everard Digby, 
pleaded not guilty, no attempt was made by any of 
them to deny a full participation in the Plot. Nor 
can it be doubted that their offence amounted to high 
treason. The design of blowing up the Parliament 


PLOT OCCASIONED BY RELIGIOUS FANATICISM. 149 

House, when the King and Prince were there, was 
compassing and imagining the death of the King and 
the heir-apparent to the crown, within the literal 
meaning of the statute of treasons; while the conduct of 
the conspirators who assembled in Warwickshire, after 
the apprehension of Fawkes, and rode armed through the 
country in warlike array, in defiance of the established 
government, and exciting others to insurrection, was 
nothing short of open rebellion, and clearly constituted 
a “ levying of war against the King in his realm,” 
within the words of another clause of the same statute. 
In legal consideration, therefore, the justice of their 
conviction and sentence is too plain for discussion; and 
in a moral point of view, the most scrupulous objector 
to capital punishments will hardly consider the loss 
of life as too severe a retribution for an offence of 
such unexampled barbarity. Mere political discontent 
would be insufficient to account for the formation and 
deliberate execution of such a project. The depressed 
condition of the Koman Catholics,—resentment of the 
wrongs they had suffered,—the dread of further perse¬ 
cution, and, above all, perhaps, indignation at the 
faithless conduct of the King, were motives sufficient to 
lead men to resistance and insurrection; but a contri¬ 
vance so inhuman as the Gunpowder Plot can only be 
ascribed to the baneful influence of fanaticism; and it 
may be doubted whether there is any other engine by 
which the natural feelings of the human heart could be 
so far distorted and deadened, as to contemplate the in¬ 
discriminate slaughter of several hundreds of persons, 


Peculiar 
character of 
the Con¬ 
spirators. 


150 PECULIAR CHARACTER OF THE CONSPIRATORS. 

not in an open act of war, but by deliberate and 
insidious assassination, as a laudable and pious under- 

One of the most singular features of the history of 
this conspiracy was the character and quality of the 
persons engaged in it. Dissolute and needy adven¬ 
turers have been, at all times, the ready instruments in 
any scheme calculated to raise a storm on the surface of 
society, and produce confusion and uproar. Such 
characters may possibly gain by disturbance and revo¬ 
lution, and have, at all events, nothing to lose. Thus 
Catiline, at Rome, registered in his desperate band all 
the ruined spendthrifts,—the disgraced, the idle, and the 
hopeless prodigals, who wander up and down a popu¬ 
lous city, prepared alike for plunder or for outrage, as 
the opportunity presents itself. “ Semper in civ it ate” 
says Sallust, “ quibus opes nullce sunt , vetera oclere , nova 
exoptant; odio suarum rerum mutari omnia student; 
turbd atque seditionibus sine curd aluntur , quoniam 
egestas facile habetur sine damno. But in the case of 
the Gunpowder Treason, many of the conspirators, such 
as Robert Winter, Rookwood, Digby, Tresham, and 
Grant, were men of large possessions; others again, 
such as Percy, Fawkes, and Keyes, were engaged in 
useful and honourable occupations which raised them 
far above the temptation of want. The Attorney- 
General, in his speech on their trial, describes them 
as “ gentlemen of good houses, of excellent parts, and 
of very competent fortunes and estates.” Not one of 
them but Catesby was in pecuniary difficulty, and his 



ACTUATED BY A MISTAKEN SENSE OF DUTY. 151 

poverty would have ended at his mother’s death, 
when the estates of his ancestors would have descended 
to him in possession. 

In another respect, also, we find in this conspiracy 
men not usually acting in the ranks of insurrection;— 
men of mild and amiable manners, refined by a liberal 
education, averse to tumults and bloodshed, and dwell¬ 
ing quietly amidst the humanities of domestic life. 
Of Rookwood, Father Greenway says, “ I knew 
him well, and loved him tenderly. He was beloved 
by all who knew him. He left behind him his lady, 
who was a very beautiful person and of a high family, 
and two or three little children, all of whom, together 
with everything he had in this world, he cast aside to 
follow the fortunes of this rash and desperate con¬ 
spiracy.”* Of Sir Everard Digby’s attachment to his 
domestic circle, his remarkable letter to his children 
from the Tower, dated only a few days before his trial, 
is a sufficient memorial.t 

It must have been a much more powerful motive 
than any of those that usually influence the actions of 
mankind, which could induce such persons to do 
violence to their nature and their usual habits, and 
produce the strange delusion that, in committing a" 
barbarous murder—“ in murdering,” as it has been 
termed, “ a kingdom in its representatives,”J—they 
were performing an action by which they secured to 

* Greenway’s MS. 

f See letters appended to tke“ Gunpowder Treason,” published in 
1679. 

t Bishop of Lincoln’s Letter, p. 137. 


152 ACTUATED BY A MISTAKEN SENSE OF DUTY. 


themselves the approbation of Heaven. And it is 
quite clear that notwithstanding the occasional mis¬ 
givings suggested by conscience to the minds of the 
conspirators, they were really actuated by a mistaken 
sense of duty, and that many of them spoke exultingly 
of the attempt, and maintained to the last a conviction 
that their project was not only justifiable, but in the 
highest degree meritorious in the sight of God. % 
“Nothing grieves me,” says Robert Winter to Fawkes 
in the Tower, “but that there is not an apology made 
by some to justify our doings in this business; but 
our deaths will be a sufficient justification of it, and 
it is for God’s cause and in the same conversation 
he expresses his regret that ‘ £ the business having 
been brought within a day or two of its execution 
should be so unhappily thwarted.” “If we had 
had good luck,” said Christopher Wright, on the 
march of the fugitives through the midland counties, 
“ we had made those in the Parliament House fly 
with their heels upwards to the sky.’T Casaubon men¬ 
tions the following fact respecting another of the con¬ 
spirators. “ John Grant,” says he,f “ one of the traitors, 
on the very day of his execution for his share in this 
plot, was entreated, by a pious and learned clergy¬ 
man, to entertain, at the last, a proper sense of 
his situation, and duly reflecting upon the magnitude 
of his crime, with hearty penitence to seek for pardon 

* See Criminal Trials, vol. ii. p. 1G7, note. 

f William Handy’s Examination, November 27tli, 1G05. 

X Epistle to Fronto Dueseus, p. 91. 


SIR E. DIGBY’S EXPRESSION. 


153 


from Heaven. Grant replied, with a cheerful counte¬ 
nance, and full of confidence, ‘ I am convinced that 
our project was so far from being sinful, that I rely 
entirely upon my merits in bearing a part of that noble 
action, as an abundant satisfaction and expiation for all 
sins committed by me during the rest of my life.’ ” 
There is abundant evidence that Sir Everard Digby 
joined in the enterprise under the full persuasion that 
in so doing he was rendering good service to his church 
and promoting the cause of true religion. Seventy 
years after his death certain papers were found by the 
executors of* his son, Sir Kenelm Digby, among his 
deeds and writings carefully laid together in a bag; 
and these papers upon examination proved to be 
original letters and poems of Sir Everard Digby, 
written in the Tower, and sent furtively from thence to 
certain members of his family. These curious and 
interesting papers were first published in 1679 as an 
appendix to the Bishop of Lincoln’s republication of 
the “ Account of the Gunpowder Plot.”* In one of 
the letters to his wife, Sir Everard Digby expresses 
grief and surprise that his conduct in engaging in the 
Plot had been disapproved by some members of the 
Roman Catholic Church. “ If,” says he, “ I had 
thought there had been the least sin in it, I would 
not have been of it for all the world, and no other 
cause drew me to hazard my fortune and life but zeal 
to God’s religion. But when I heard that Catholics 

* See Burnet's account of them, History of his own Times, 
vol. i. p. 11. 


154 ENGLISH ROMAN CATHOLICS NOT GENERALLY 


and priests thought that it should be a great sin that 
should be the cause of my end, it called my conscience 
in doubt of my very best actions and intentions. I 
protest unto you that the doubts I had of my own 
good state, which only proceeded from the censure of 
others, caused more bitterness of grief in me than all 
the miseries that ever I endured; and I could do 
nothing but with tears ask pardon at God’s hands for 
all my errors, both in actions and intentions in this 
business.” 

An anecdote is related of Ambrose Rookwood by 
Father Greenway, which likewise indicates a persuasion 
among the conspirators and their immediate connexions, 
that what they had undertaken was justifiable in the 
sight of God. He says that 44 the procession to the 
place of execution in Palace Yard passed by a house in 
the Strand, in which Rookwood’s wife lodged. She 
had placed herself at an open window; and Rook wood, 
raising himself as well as he could from the hurdle on 
which he was drawn, called upon his wife to 44 pray for 
him.” She replied in a clear and strong voice, 4 4 1 
will! I will! and do you offer yourself with a good 
heart to God and your Creator ! I yield you to Him 
with as full an assurance that you will be accepted of 
Him as when He gave you to me !” # 

Roman Although a diligent and rigorous examination was 

Catholics .... 

generally not directed to this obiect, there is no evidence to show 

privy to the 

plot - that many English Catholics, besides the actual and 
ascertained conspirators, were acquainted with the Plot. 

* Greenway’s IMS., p. 136. 


PRIVY TO THE CONSPIRACY. 


155 


The general policy of Catesby and his companions was 
to admit no more into the confederacy than were 
necessary to carry the immediate objects of it into exe¬ 
cution, rightly judging, that in proportion to the 
numbers of the accomplices, would be the chances of 
discovery, either by treachery or carelessness. After 
its failure, the Roman Catholics of the first importance 
in the country generally declared their disapprobation 
of it; and it is worthy of remark, that Sir Everard Digby, 
in the posthumous letters above alluded to, pathetically 
expresses his grief that the cause for which he had 
sacrificed so much, and which brought him to his 
death, was disapproved by priests and laymen of his 
own communion, and was even condemned by them 
as a great sin. # 

In estimating the probable extent to which this Plot 
was known and encouraged by the English Roman 
Catholics, it ought to be remembered that all the 
avowed conspirators belonged to the Jesuits’ faction, 
between whom and those attached to the secular priests 
a most determined hostility prevailed. De Beaumont 
repeatedly mentions this schism in the Roman Catholic 
party; and it is evident from the letters and examina¬ 
tions of the secular priests, Watson and Clarke, respect¬ 
ing the Plot of 1603, that they were most anxious at 
that time to fix the suspicion of a dangerous design 
against the state upon “ Jesuits and jesuited persons.”! 

'* “History of the Manner of the Discovery of the Gunpowder 
Plot,” edit. 1679, p. 170. 
f Sec Criminal Trials, vol. i. p. 423. 


156 


REALITY OF THE PLOT. 


It is, therefore, in the highest degree improbable that 
any of the Roman Catholics of the secular party, 
whether priests or laymen, were accomplices in the 
Gunpowder Treason. 

It is perhaps scarcely necessary to notice the strange 
suggestion first made some years after the transaction, 
and readily adopted by some Roman Catholic writers, 
namely, that the Gunpowder Plot was an artifice of 
Lord Salisbury’s, who had engaged some desperate men 
in the conspiracy, which he managed in such a manner 
that he could discover it when he pleased. Mr. 
Butler, in his Memoirs of the English Catholics, 
admits that this suggestion is wholly without foun¬ 
dation in fact. That the Government were aware of 
the plot before the arrival of the letter to Lord Mount- 
eagle, and that the King and the House of Lords 
would have been perfectly safe if that letter had never 
been written, is by no means improbable; and the 
letter itself may have been a contrivance, or, as Osborn 
calls it, a “ neat device ” of the Secretary to conceal 
the real mode of the discovery.* But that Lord 
Salisbury, or the Government, concocted the whole 
scheme for political purposes, is incredible in itself, is 
wholly unsupported by evidence, and is negatived by 
all the ascertained facts of the transaction. 


* Osborn’s Memoirs of King James, cliap. 13. 


FOREIGN POWERS NOT PARTIES TO THE PLOT. 


157 


CHAPTER VI. 

Foreign powers not parties to the Plot—The Earl of Northumber¬ 
land committed to the Tower — Prosecuted in the Star-Chamber — 

Unjust sentence — Proceedings against the Lords Montague, 

Mordaunt, and Stourton — Suspicions of the Jesuit priests— 

Bates's statements respecting Greenway and Garnet—Procla¬ 
mation against the Jesuits —Proposed Bill of Attainder—Escape 
of Gerard and Green way—Account of Garnet—His connexion 
with Anne Vaux—Pilgrimage to St. Winifred’s Well—Garnet s 
Journey to Coughton—His removal to Hencllip—Description of 
Hendlip Hall—Investment and search of the house—Humphrey 
Littleton’s disclosure respecting Hall — Garnet and Hall dis¬ 
covered and apprehended — Garnet’s personal narrative — His 
examination—Suicide of Owen—Conferences between Garnet and 
Hall in the Tower—Garnet’s admissions—Execution of Hall.— 

Papal Breves sent to Garnet—Mr. Abington convicted and par¬ 
doned. 

As soon as the immediate agents in this conspiracy 
were ascertained and secured, it became an object of 
paramount importance to the Government to obtain 
available evidence against those whom they supposed 
to be the secret contrivers and promoters of it. 

There seemed to be no suspicion, and indeed no xo foreign 

. powers privy 

reason to suspect that any foreign powers had either to the Plot, 
instigated or encouraged the conspirators, or were 


# 


158 


APPREHENSION OF BALDWIN AND OWEN. 


privy to the design. The King of Spain, who had 
favoured former attempts, had just concluded a peace 
with England, which he considered advantageous to 
himself, and had therefore, at that period, no interest 
in promoting an insurrection among the English Roman 
Catholics. Henry IY. of France was far too wise and 
enlightened a prince to have encouraged so unpro¬ 
mising a project, though the departure of De Beau¬ 
mont, his ambassador, a few days only before the 5th 
of November, gave occasion to some whispers of sus- 
picion.^ That the Pope knew nothing of the project 
is probable from the fact that Sir Edmund Baynham 
was despatched by the conspirators to Rome, for the 
purpose of being with his Holiness at the time of the 
explosion, and of giving him a’ plausible account of 
their motives and plans. Father Baldwin and Hugh 
Owen were the only two persons abroad whom the 
conspirators had particularly inculpated by their ex¬ 
aminations. A strenuous application was therefore 
made by the English Government to the Archduke 
that they should be delivered up to justice. The 
persons of both were secured at Brussels, but the 
Archduke hesitated to give them up to the English 
Ambassador without the authority of the King of 
Spain. After much delay on the part of the Arch¬ 
duke, and much urgency and some threats on the part 
of Lord Salisbury, the Spanish Government declined 

* See Sir Edward Hoby’s Letter to Sir Thomas Edmondes, 
November, 1605. 


PROCEEDING AGAINST LORD NORTHUMBERLAND. 159 


to give up Baldwin and Owen, as they had become 
domiciled, though not naturalized, in Flanders.* 

Suspicion also rested upon several peers, who from 
their connexion with the declared conspirators, their 
absence from the Parliament and other circumstances, 
were supposed to have had intelligence of the Plot. 
Of these suspected persons the most important was 
Henry, Earl of Northumberland. He was related to 
Percy the conspirator, although the precise manner of 
his relationship is unknown; he had admitted him to 
the office of gentleman-pensioner, and had intrusted 
him with the stewardship of his estates in the North. 
These facts were quite sufficient to direct attention to 
Northumberland, and their effect was strengthened by 
the knowledge that Percy had dined at Sion the day 
before the fatal 5th of November, and that Fawkes had 
come to him there to apprise him of the Lord Chamber¬ 
lain’s visit to the cellar. Under these circumstances, 
it was a reasonable precaution “ to restrict the Earl in 
the first instance to his own house and afterwards to 
commit him to the Archbishop of Canterbury, there to 
be honourably used, until things should be more 
quiet.”t And as the extent of the- conspiracy de¬ 
veloped itself by the examinations of Fawkes and 
Thomas Winter, and it appeared that Percy had 

* A sensible opinion of a Flemish civilian against the propriety 
of giving up Owen, which was probably sent by the Archduke 
to Lord Salisbury, is among the documents at the State-Paper 
Office. 

f Letter of Lord Salisbury to Sir Charles Cornwallis. Winwood’s 
Memorials, vol. ii. p. 172. 


Proceedings 
against the 
Earl of 
Northumber¬ 
land. 


160 NORTHUMBERLAND COMMITTED TO THE TOWER. 

expressly stipulated that the Earl should have warning 
to absent himself from the Parliament, it was not un¬ 
reasonable that he should be further committed for safe 
custody to the Tower. Lord Salisbury disclaims all 
hostility to the Earl on the part of the Council in the 
adoption of these measures against him. <c Assure 
yourself,” he says to Sir Thomas Edmondes,* “ that 
such is the justice of this time, as if no more appear 
than this, which may well deserve as much as is done, 
there shall be no such rules of rigorous policy practised 
upon a nobleman of his blood and quality, as not to set 
him free again without touch of his estate; assuring 
you, for mine own part, that although it is not im¬ 
probable that Percy gave him some general warning, 
according to his resolution with his confederates, and 
that there is no direct proof whether the Earl would 
have been present at the Parliament or not, because 
the hour was prevented of the execution, wherein it 
may be said he might in discretion have forborne to 
offer any show of absence till the very instant; yet I 
believe that Percy never durst acquaint a nobleman of 
his birth, alliance, and disposition with so unnatural 
and savage a plot as that, wherein so many, whom 
himself loved, must have perished. Only this is the 
misfortune, that Catesby and Percy being dead, his 
innocency or his guiltiness must both depend upon 
circumstances of other persons and time.” 

But either Lord Salisbury was insincere in these 
assurances of an intention to release Northumberland if 


# Birch’s Negotiations, p. 245. 


PROSECUTED IN THE STAR CHAMBER. 161 

nothing further appeared against him, or evidence 
must have been laid before the Council which was 
concealed from the public eye at the time, and which 
does not exist at the present day. Among the State 
Papers there is nothing which tends to show that he 
had any previous knowledge of the Plot; and indeed 
although he did not regain his liberty for fifteen years, 
a criminal implication in the design of the conspirators 
was never formally imputed to him. In the month of 
June, 1G06, he was charged in the Star Chamber with 
misprision. As the proceedings were ore tenus, there 
is no judicial record of the particular charges; but the 
following are stated by contemporary writers to have 
been the accusations preferred against him. First, 
That he endeavoured to become the head of the Papists 
and to procure them toleration; 2nd, That with full 
knowledge that Percy was a recusant, he had admitted 
him as a gentleman-pensioner without administering 
to him the oath of supremacy; 3rd, That with full 
knowledge of Percy’s guilt, and while he was himself 
under restraint on suspicion, he had written letters to 
his friends and servants in the North for the purpose 
of securing his own money from Percy’s hands, without 
authorising them to arrest Percy as a traitor; 4th, 
That he had sent letters, while under restraint, 
without leave of the King; 5th, That though a Privy 
Councillor, and sworn to preserve the King and the 
State, he had taken more care of his own treasure 
than of the King or State, without any endeavour to 
apprehend Percy; 6th, That he sent letters into the 


162 


UNJUST SENTENCE. 


western counties, whither Percy had fled, the effect 
of which was to give him intelligence and direction 
for his farther flight and escape. For these offences 
he was adjudged to pay a fine of 30,000Z., to forfeit all 
the offices he held under the Crown, and to be 
imprisoned in the Tower for life.* * Supposing these 
articles of accusation against Northumberland to be 
accurately reported,' as above stated, it would be diffi¬ 
cult to find in the history of English judicature a 
punishment more flagrantly disproportionate to the 
offence charged. Hudson indeed, in his Treatise on 
the Star Chamber, intimates his opinion that the 
proceedings in this case were wholly irregular. 
According to the practice of the Star Chamber the 
proceeding ore tenus could only be resorted to in cases 
where the defendant confessed the charge. Where 
the defendant denied the charge imputed to him the 
proceedings must have been by information and answer 
in writing and formal depositions of witnesses. This 
was the tedious process which Lord Bacon refers to 
when he says “ the Star Chamber, without confession, 
is long seas.”j- “By what rule, therefore,” says 
Hudson,:f “ that sentence was against the Earl of 
Northumberland, I know not; for it was ore tenus, 
and yet not upon confession.” Possibly, however, 
there may have been no technical irregularity. The 

# Stow’s Chronicle, p. 884. 

f Lord Yerulam’s Letter to the Marquis of Buckingham about 
PeachanTs Case, last of July, 1619. Bacon’s Works, vol. iii. p. 372. 
4 to edition. 

X Collectanea Juridica, vol. ii. p. 63. 


OTHER PEERS SENT TO THE TOWER. 


163 


facts charged in the above articles were literally true, 
and it is not improbable that the Earl may have 
confessed them, although he constantly denied any 
participation in the Plot. If so, the proceedings in 
the Star Chamber would have been regular in point of 
form, but most irregular and unjust in effect; inasmuch 
as the Earl would have been charged with one offence 


which he had confessed, and sentenced for another 
which lie had denied, and of which no proof was given. 

Under this unjust sentence he remained in the 
Tower until 1621, although his fine, which had been 
reduced to 11,000/. by a composition in the Star 
Chamber, in conformity with an usual practice, had 
been paid in 1614. While in the Tower he devoted 
himself to astrology, and to scientific pursuits, and 
many men of learning became his frequent and familiar 
visitors. 

Three other lords, Montague, Mordaunt, and Stourton, Lords 
were also sent to the Tower upon the first discovery of Mordaunt’ 

and Stourton 

the Plot. All of them were intimate friends and sent to the 

Tower. 

associates of the principal conspirators; the names of all 
of them had been mentioned by Fawkes and others in 
their examinations, as persons who were to receive an 
intelligible warning to absent themselves from the first 
meeting of the Parliament, and there is no doubt that 
all of them were in fact absent. The examinations of 
Lord Mordaunt and Lord Stourton before the Lords of 
the Council are extant at the State-Paper Office, 
and the insufficient reasons they allege for their 
absence produce a strong impression that the real 


164 


SUSPICION OF THE JESUIT PRIESTS. 


reason was one which they did not choose to avow. 
Lord Stourton had married Tresham’s sister, and Lord 
Mordaunt was also nearly connected with him. ‘Under 
these suspicious circumstances, they were sent to the 
Tower and afterwards fined in the Star Chamber for a 
misprision and contempt in not obeying the King’s 
summons to Parliament. Lord Montague compounded 
for a fine of 4000/. and Lord Stourton for 1000/.; 
Lord Mordaunt’s fine was wholly remitted and he was 
set at liberty.* 

Suspicions of The suspicions of the Government, however, princi- 

Priests. pally attached to Garnet, the provincial of the Jesuits 
in England, and the Jesuits Greenway and Gerard, 
all of whom were known to have participated in former 
treasonable practices. It was indeed not unreasonable 
to conclude that a plot, exclusively devised by Roman 
Catholics for the promotion of the Roman Catholic 
religion, and from its enormous wickedness so startling 
to the consciences of all men in whose minds every 
spark of humanity had not been extinguished, must 
have been declared by some of the conspirators to their 
spiritual advisers, either in confession or for the purpose 
of resolving doubts and scruples. Many laborious days 
were therefore employed by the Commissioners, assisted 
by the acuteness and skill of Popham, Coke, and Bacon, 
in the diligent examination of the various prisoners, and 
the endeavour to draw forth from their concealment 
the supposed directors of this machinery of treason. 

In general, the principal conspirators strenuously 
# Collins’s Peerage, vol. iv. p. 152. 


LAY CONSPIRATORS DENY THEIR PRIVITY. 165 

denied that the Jesuit priests were aware of the Plot. 
They did not scruple to admit that both Garnet and 
Greenway were acquainted with the treasonable corre¬ 
spondence with the King of Spain in the last year 
before Queen Elizabeth’s death, because they knew 
that the general pardon upon James’s accession would 
protect the priests from the consequences of treasons 
committed in a former reis;n. And several of the con- 
spirators admitted that after the failure of the scheme 
they had confessed their particular actions in this 
treason to their spiritual advisers, and had received 
absolution for them among their general sins. But no 
threats, promises, or torture could prevail upon the 
conspirators to admit that any knowledge of the Gun¬ 
powder Plot before its discovery had been communicated 
to the priests. Thus Fawkes, in his examination of 
the 9th of November, which was probably taken upon 
the rack, admits, that after taking the oath of secrecy, 
the five original conspirators received the sacrament from 
Father Gerard, in confirmation of their vow ; but he 
carefully adds that “Gerard was not acquainted with 
their purpose.” So also Thomas Winter says,* that 
‘ * they took the sacrament, for confirmation of their 
oath of secrecy, by the hands of Gerard; but that he 
was not present when they took the oath, being in 
an upper chamber in the same houseand adds, that 
“ Gerard knew not of the project of the powder to his 
knowledge.” “ As yet,” says Sir Everard Digby, in 


* Examination, November 9th, 1605.—State-Paper Office. 


166 


BATES’S STATEMENT RESPECTING 


Bates’s state¬ 
ments re¬ 
specting 
Garnet and 
Greenway. 


one of’ liis letters from the Tower,* “ they have not 
got of me the affirming that I know any priest parti¬ 
cularly, nor shall ever do to the hurt of any but myself. 
Mr. Attorney and my Lord Chief Justice asked me if 
I had taken the sacrament to keep secret the Plot as 
others did? I said that I had not, because I would 
avoid the question of at whose hands it were. I have 
before all the lords cleared all the priests in it for 
anything that I know.” 

The first direct evidence obtained against any of 
the Jesuits was furnished by Catesby’s servant, Bates, 
who, on the 4th of December, stated that, after having 
taken the oath of secrecy from the hands of Catesby 
and Thomas Winter, “ they told him that he must 
receive the sacrament for more assurance; that there¬ 
upon he confessed to Greenway, and told him that he 
was to conceal a very dangerous piece of work that his 
master and Thomas Winter had imparted to him; and 
being fearful of it, asked the counsel of' Green way, 
telling him their particular intent and purpose of 
blowing up the Parliament House; that Greenway 
thereto said, that he would take no notice thereof, but 
that Bates should be secret in that which his master 
had imparted to him, because it was for a good cause, 
and that he should tell no other priest of it; saying 
moreover, that it was not dangerous to him, nor any 
offence to conceal it; and thereupon Green way gave 
him absolution, and he received the sacrament in 

* See Digby’s Letters appended to the Bishop of Lincoln’s edition 
of the ‘ Discovery of the Gunpowder Plot,’ p. 241. 


GARNET AND GREENWAY. 


167 


company of his master and Thomas Winter.”* Green¬ 
way, in his Narrative, solemnly denies the truth of this 
statement, and declares, upon his salvation, that Bates 
never spoke one word to him on the subject, either in 
or out of confession; and his denial, to a certain ex¬ 
tent, is corroborated by Garnet, who, in an examina¬ 
tion of the 12th of March, 1605-6, says that “ Green- 
way did not tell him that Bates had acquainted him 
with the Plot, or that Bates knew of it.” Bates's 
statement, however, was undoubtedly sufficient to 
fix Greenway with an antecedent knowledge and 
approbation of the Plot; but still no evidence could 
be obtained against either Garnet or Gerard. At 
length, on the 13th of January, nearly six weeks 
after his former statement, Bates was brought to make 
a declaration by which Garnet also was supposed to be 
fully and clearly inculpated. He stated that “ after the 
discovery of the cellar and the flight of the conspirators 
from London, when Catesby and his companions were 
at Grant’s house, at Norbrook, on their way to Hud- 
dington, his master sent him to Coughton with a letter 
from Sir Everard Digby to Garnet to ask his advice 
what course they were now to take in their proceed¬ 
ings ; that he accordingly delivered the letter, and 
that, while Garnet was reading it, Greenway came in> 
and asked what was the matter; that upon this Garnet 
read the letter to him aloud, in the hearing of Bates, 
and told Green way that “ they would have blown up 
the Parliament House, and were discovered, and we 
* Examination of Thomas Bates, Dec. 4th, 1G05.— State-Paper Office. 


108 


BATES’S SECOND STATEMENT. 


all utterly undone.” Greenway then said that “ there 
was no tarrying for himself and Garnet.” Bates 
entreated Greenway to come to his master, 44 if ever 
he would do anything for himto which Green way 
answered, that 44 he would not forbear to go unto him, 
though it were to suffer a thousand deaths, but that it 
would overthrow the state of the whole society of the 
Jesuits’ order.” Bates further stated that Garnet and 
Greenway conferred together for about half an hour, 
while he walked in the hall; after which Green way 
came out and accompanied him to Huddington, where 
he talked for some time privately with Catesby, and 
then rode away to Mr. Abington’s, in Worcestershire, 
for the purpose of persuading that gentleman to join 
the insurgents.* 

With respect to this second statement of Bates, the 

reader will not fail to observe that it is consistent with 

/ 

the notion that Garnet was ignorant of the Plot until 
the delivery of Digby’s letter; and indeed it can hardly 
be doubted that this is the impression which Bates 
meant to convey. That this notion was false is demon¬ 
strated by the subsequent statements of Garnet himself, 
who acknowledged his acquaintance with the Plot at a 
much earlier period, though both he and Greenway 
justified their concealment of it on the ground that 
their knowledge was obtained under the seal of confes¬ 
sion. On account of some obvious improbabilities in 
the story, Bates’s account of the conversation between 

* Thomas Bates’s Examination, January 13th, 1605-6; Hall’s 
Confession, March 6tli, 1605-6. 


PROCLAMATION AGAINST THE JESUITS. 


169 


Garnet and Greenway cannot perhaps be confidently 
relied upon. There was, however, no doubt, from the 
concurring testimony of many persons, independently 
of that of Bates, that Green way, after a consultation 
with Garnet, and with a full knowledge by both of 
what had happened in London, joined the conspirators 
at Huddington while they were in arms against the 
Government. This, therefore, was, at all events, 
evidence of misprision of treason against Garnet and 
Greenway, and justified the Government in issuing a 
proclamation for their apprehension. Gerard was also 
included in this proclamation; but at this period no 
direct evidence appears to have existed of his implica¬ 
tion in the Plot. 

The proclamation against the Jesuits was issued on 
the 15 th of January, two days after Bates’s second 
declaration. It was declared in the proclamation, that 
if “ any person should presume to be a harbourer, 
maintainer, or concealer of any of these three persons, 
or should not do his best for their discovery and appre¬ 
hension, the King was resolved to suffer the laws of 
the realm to be most severely executed upon them, as 
upon those whom he esteemed to be no less pernicious 
to his person, state, and commonwealth, than those 
that had been actors and counsellors of the main treason 
itself.”* 

Soon after the issuing of this proclamation a sweeping 
bill of attainder was introduced into Parliament, which 
recited “that Garnet, Greenway, Gerard, Creswell, 
* Rymer’s Fcedera, vol. xvi. p. 639. 

I 


Bill of 
Attainder. 


170 PROPOSED BILL OF ATTAINDER. 

Baldwin, Hammond, Hall, and Westmoreland, all of 
them Jesuits, were concerned with Catesby, Tresham, 
and Thomas Winter in the treasonable correspondence 
with Spain immediately before and after the death of 
Queen Elizabeth; that the two Winters, Fawkes, 
Keyes, Rookwood, Grant, and Bates had been convicted 
of the Powder Treason by verdict, and Sir Everard 
Digby on his own confession; that Catesby, Percy, 
and the two Wrights were slain in open rebellion; and 
that Tresham, having confessed himself guilty of all the 
treasons, had died in the Tower before he could be 
indicted.’ 5 It then proposed to enact “ that the con¬ 
victions should be confirmed by Parliament, and that 
all the offenders, as well those indicted as those not 
brought to justice and dead, should be convicted and 
attainted by that act; that such as were then living 
might be put to death at the King’s pleasure, and that 
the property of all should be forfeited to the Crown.” 
The effect of this bill was to declare the lives and 
property of several persons to be forfeited, who had 
never been arraigned or heard in their own defence. 
The Lords required the Attorney-General to lay before 
the house his proofs of the guilt of the parties sought 
to be attainted in this summary manner. This was 
done, but before the bill could be read a second time, 
Garnet and Hall were apprehended; upon which the 
Lords resolved, upon the motion of the Earl of North¬ 
ampton, that “ as upon the examination of some of the 
Jesuits and seminaries named in the said bill some 
more particular discovery might be made of the 


ESCAPE OF GERARD AND GREENWAY. 


171 


treason, therefore stay might be made of any further 
proceeding upon that bill, till the said examination 
might be taken.” * 

Gerard was fortunate enough to escape to the Escape of 
continent from Harwich shortly after the appearance Greenway. 
of the proclamation. Green way, disguising his person 
as well as he could, immediately came to London, 
thinking himself more secure from discovery in the 
populous streets of the metropolis than in the solitude 
of the country. Soon after his arrival in London, 
whilst he was one day standing in a crowd reading the 
proclamation for his apprehension at the corner of a 
street, he observed a man intently watching him, and 
comparing his person with the minute description of 
him in the proclamation. On retiring from the crowd 
this man followed him, and seizing him by the arm, 
said, “You are known; I arrest you in the King’s 
name ; you must go with me to the council.” The 
Jesuit, with great composure, assured him that he was 
not the man he supposed him to be; but accompanied 
him quietly until they came to a remote and unfre¬ 
quented street, where Greenway, being a powerful 
man, suddenly seized his companion, and, after a 
violent struggle, disengaged himself from him. He 
immediately quitted London, and remaining for a few 
days in some Roman Catholic houses in Essex and 

* Lords’ Journals, February 1st, 1605-6. Dr. Lingard (vol. ix. 
p. 60) represents that the reason for the postponement was the dis¬ 
satisfaction of the lords with the evidence laid before them. But his 
argument from the dates is not conclusive; and the cause assigned 
by the Government seems far more probable. 

' I 2 


172 


ACCOUNT OF GARNET. 


Account of 
Garnet. 


Suffolk, he at last escaped in a small trading vessel to 
Flanders.* Garnet was not so successful as Gerard 
and Greenway; but before proceeding to relate the 
story of his apprehension and trial, it is proper to 
give some account of this remarkable person, the 
nature and extent of whose connexion with the Plot 
have formed the chief subjects of contention between 
Roman Catholics and Protestants in the history of 
this transaction. 

Henry Garnet was the son of a schoolmaster at 
Nottingham, and was born about the year 1554. He 
was brought up in the Protestant religion, and received 
his early education at Winchester College, from whence 
it was intended that he should go to New College, 
Oxford; but for reasons variously assigned by his 
Roman Catholic and Protestant biographers, this inten¬ 
tion was not carried into effect. By Roman Catholics, 
a dislike to the reformed religion, conceived by him at 
Winchester, is said to have withheld him from going to 
Oxford ; but Dr. Abbott says that the gross outrages and 
monstrous immoralities committed by him in the school 
induced the Warden to admonish him not to attempt 
to remove to New College.-]- The reader must adopt 

* Juvencii Hist. Soc. Jesu, lib. xiii. p. 5, s. 48. 

f The following is Dr. Abbott’s account of Garnet’s early 
depravity, which has certainly more of the character of a tale of 
malignant scandal than of a calm narration of facts. Nevertheless 
the reference to Bishop Bilson, as a living witness of what is stated, 
is remarkable. “ Erat ille (Garnet) olim alumnus celeberrimse 
scliolse Wintoniensis quo tempore prsefectus scholse fuit reverendus 
ille doctrina et gravitate Wintoniensis nunc episcopus (Bilson), cui 
etiamnum viventi notum est quod jam narro. Fuit autem aliquanto 


ACCOUNT OF GARNET. 


173 


either of these suggestions which he thinks the more 
probable, as neither of them is capable of proof. At 
all events, Garnet removed from Winchester to London, 
where he soon afterwards became corrector of the press 
to Tottel, the celebrated law printer. While he was 
in this employment he became acquainted with Chief 
Justice Popham, who recognized him on his first 
examination, and who, as well as Sir Edward Coke, 
treated him throughout the inquiry with great respect. 
The latter, in his speech on Garnet’s trial, represents 
him as a man having “ many excellent gifts and endow¬ 
ments of nature; by birth a gentleman, by education a 
scholar, by art learned, and a good linguist.” After 
remaining with Tottel about two years, during which 
time his aversion to the Protestant religion had become 
confirmed, he determined to be reconciled to the Roman 
Catholic church; and having travelled, first to Spain 
and then to Rome, he entered into the Society of 
Jesus in the year 1575. In the Jesuits’ College at 
Rome he studied with much industry and success under 


grandior factus unus ex praepositis quos vocant, quorum munus est 
caeterorum delinquentium nomina deferre; ex quo ambire gratiam 
illorum caeteri solent, et sibi quoad possent conciliari conari. Ergo 
quod pessimo et proclivi ad nequitiam ingenio esset, nec ferret 
manum illam qua castigandus et a malis moribus coercendus esset, 
solicitavit ille quosdam ad consilia sua, cumque iis conjurationem 
iniit ad vim ludimagistro afferendum eique dextram manum prseci- 
dendam;—omine pessimo quasi prsenuncians qualis in principes 
et magistratus et praefectos suos postea futurus esset. Ad reliquam 
pravitatem vitiosse libidinis monstrum accessit, qua ex condiscipulis 
quinque aut sex quos speciosiores adamaverat, Romana, si velis, sive 
malis, Sodomitica constupravit.”—Antilogia Epist. Ad. Lectorum. 



174 


ACCOUNT OF GARNET. 


Bellarmine,* and other Roman Catholic professors; and 
such was his proficiency and reputation there in various 
departments of learning, that, at an early age, he was 
chosen Professor of Hebrew, and was licensed to lecture 
on metaphysics; and on occasion of the illness of the 
celebrated Clavius, who was professor of mathematics, 
Grarnet conducted his class for upwards of two years. 
In 1586, at the suggestion of Father Parsons, he was 
appointed to the English mission; an employment for 
which his reputation for learning and his religious 
enthusiasm eminently adapted him, and which had long 
been the peculiar object of his wishes. Writers of his 
own communion describe him as a man of singularly 
mild and amiable demeanour, and of such remarkable 
gentleness of disposition, that Aquaviva, the Principal 

# Bellarmine thus speaks of Garnet after his death : “ Multorum 
annorum Gametti consuetudine usus, optime novi smnmam ejus 
probitatem et innocentiam, cum summa ingenii eruditione conjunc- 
tam.”—Bell. Apol. pro Resp.,p. 178. In another passage Bellarmine 
characterises Garnet as “ vir doctrina omnis generis et vitfe sanctitate 
incomparabilis.’*—Responsio Forti, p. 65. Upon this Bishop Andrews 
remarks, “ Doctrinam si quam habuit, sibi habuit; nemo illi earn 
elicere, nemo extundere potuit; deprecatus semper in re literaria 
collationem omnem. Profecto, in chartis ejus, quse repertse sunt, in 
toto sermone nihil usquam reconditse eruditionis; Bacchum enim 
certe magis redolebat quam Apollinem. Siquid autem de Tlieolo- 
gia incidisset, ablegabat ad alium, nescio quern collegam suum. Se 
enim per annos jam multos rebus gerendis fuisse, totum in praxim 
politicam incubuisse; earn praxim doctrinam sibi omnem (siqua 
unquam fuit) expectorasse; ut nostri, qui hominem adierunt, non 
alio sensu doctrinam ejus incomparabilem putarint, quam quod earn 
sibi nunquam comparare potuerit.”—Tortura Torti, p. 228. [Edit. 
1851, p. 271-2.] Notwithstanding this disparagement of Garnet’s 
learning by Bishop Andrews, his additions to the “Treatise of 
Equivocation,” demonstrate his familiar acquaintance with the con¬ 
troversial writings of the Jesuits. 


SUPERIOR OF THE JESUITS IN ENGLAND. 


175 


of the Jesuits, discouraged his appointment to the 
English mission, on the ground that the difficulties and 
dangers of the situation called for a sterner and more 
enduring character. Two years after his arrival in 
England, the Superior of the English Jesuits being 
arrested and imprisoned, Garnet was chosen as his 
successor, and continued to discharge the duties of that 
responsible office with such exemplary punctuality, and 
with such an earnest zeal and courageous defiance of 
the dangers and persecutions which surrounded him, 

* that he had acquired the esteem and veneration of his 
communion. For several years previously to the 
Powder Plot he remained for the most part in the 
neighbourhood of London, ostensibly following various 
occupations, in order to disguise his real calling. 
He was well known to have been fully implicated 
in the treasonable intrigue with the King of Spain 
immediately before the death of Queen Elizabeth, and 
was suspected of other seditious practices; and in order 
to protect himself from penal consequences, he pur¬ 
chased a general pardon upon the accession of James. His 
intimate association with Catesby, Tresham, Winter, 
Baynham, and other disaffected recusants, had for 
several years before the Powder Plot exposed him to 
the peculiar suspicion of the Government. 

In the houses of many of the Roman Catholic nobility 
Garnet lived on terms of domestic familiarity; but 
William, Lord Yaux of Harrowden, was his peculiar 
patron and friend, from the time of his first arrival in 
England till the death of that nobleman in 1595. 


Garnet’s con¬ 
nexion with 
Anne Vaux. 


176 


GARNET’S CONNEXION WITH ANNE VAUX. 


Intercepted 
Letters of 
Anne Vaux 
and Garnet 


Here also commenced his intimacy with the family of 
Sir Thomas Tresham, whose sister Lord Vaux had 
married, and whose residence at Rushton was not far 
distant from Harrowden; and here arose that singular 
connexion between Garnet and Anne Vaux, which was 
frequently alluded to in the course of the proceedings 
against him, and also in the subsequent controversy, in 
terms of scandal and reproach. Anne Vaux was the 
eldest daughter of Lord Vaux, by his first wife, a 
daughter of Sir Thomas Beaumont, Master of the Rolls. 
Lord Vaux was an enthusiastic devotee, and had 
brought up all his children in a rigid observance of the 
Roman Catholic faith. His eldest son, actuated by 
religious zeal, abandoned his native country, as well as 
his paternal title and estate, and entered into a foreign 
monastery, where he took orders, and died, during his 
father’s life. One of his daughters married a rigid 
Roman Catholic, named Brooksby, and with her hus¬ 
band and her sister Anne Vaux, upon the death of their 
father, followed Garnet’s fortunes, and were content, 
for the sake of religion and from personal attachment 
to him, to share his dangerous and uncertain mode of 
life. They always resided in the houses of common 
resort of the Jesuits; and as the persecutions of the 
times compelled Garnet constantly to change his place 
of abode, Anne Vaux continually accompanied him in 
all his peregrinations. 

It is not surprising that such a connexion should 
have been ascribed to bonds less pure than those 
of religious or Platonic attachment. It would be idle, 


INTERCEPTED CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THEM. 177 


of course, to investigate at length the merits of a tale 
of scandal more than two centuries old. Garnet 
solemnly denied the imputation at his execution, and 
his intercepted letters from the Tower show no feeling 
towards Anne Yaux beyond that of paternal regard; 
and though the language of some of her letters is suffi¬ 
ciently excited and passionate, they express only the 
agony of distress at the loss of a valued friend, upon 
whose advice and society she had long habitually 
relied. They are, in fact, such letters as any religious 
devotee might at that time have written to a spiritual 
protector under similar circumstances. For instance, 
in answer to a note, in which he informed her that 
Father Hall, had dreamed that “he and Garnet were 
transported to two fair tabernacles,” Anne Yaux writes 
as follows: “ Mr. Hall’s dream had been a great com¬ 
fort, if at the foot of the throne there had been a seat 
for me. God and you know my unworthiness; I 
beseech you to help me with your prayers. Your’s, 
and not my own, A. Y.” * In a subsequent note she 
says, “ If this come safe to you, I will write, and so 
will more friends, who would be glad to have direction 
from you who should supply your room. For myself, 


* It should here be noticed that Dr. Abbott, who in his Antilogia 
indulges in much sarcasm respecting this connexion between Garnet 
and Mrs. Anne Yaux, remarks upon the signature to this letter as 
being A. G. (i.e. Anne Garnet), supposing that she used Garnet’s 
name in the character of his wife. The suggestion is in itself ex¬ 
tremely improbable ; but in fact the signature is undoubtedly A. V., as 
appears to demonstration, upon comparing it with several instances 
of her handwriting in the State-Paper Office. 

i 3 


178 


GARNET ACCUSED OF DRUNKENNESS. 


I am forced to seek new friends ; my old are * * * * 
of me. I beseech you for God’s sake, advise me what 
course to take so long as I may hear from you. Not 
out of London, my hope is that you will continue 
your care of me, and commend me to some that for 
your sake will help me. To live without you is not 
life but death. Now I see my loss. I am and always 
will be your’s, and so I beseech you to account me. 
0, that I might see you ! Your’s.” Whatever may 
be thought of other circumstances, these fragments of 
letters amount to no confirmation of the scandal. It 
is not, perhaps, wholly immaterial to consider that at 
this period Anne Vaux was upwards of forty, and 
Garnet more than fifty years of age. 

The vice of habitual drunkenness was freely imputed 
to Garnet by his contemporaries. Dr. Abbott says 
expressly that “ Garnet had an inveterate habit of 
drinking to excess.” He relates that “ on the night 
before his execution he was so drunk in the Tower, 
that his keeper thought it right to inform the Lieu¬ 
tenant of the circumstance; who, going with his wife 
and some other persons, to his lodging, found him in a 
disgusting state of intoxication, speaking thickly and 
inarticulately, and in the idiotcy of drunkenness, in¬ 
viting each of them as they came in to drink with 
him.” f Chamberlain also, in a letter to Sir Dudley 
Carleton, dated 27 March 1606, says, “ Garnet hath 

* These notes were written in orange-juice, and many words and 
passages in them are entirely illegible. 

f Antilogia, p. 194. 


PILGRIMAGE TO ST. WINIFRED’S WELL. 179 

been indulgent to himself in the Gatehouse and in the 
Tower, and daily drunk sack so liberally as if he meant 
to drown sorrow.” These stories might be esteemed 
mere slanders, originating in party feeling or malignant 
gossip, were not the fact in great measure confirmed 
by an admission of Garnet himself. In one of the con¬ 
ferences between himself and Hall in the Tower, a 
confession made by Garnet to Hall was overheard, in 
which he states “ that because he had drunk extra¬ 
ordinarily, he was fain to go two nights to bed 
betimes.”* 

In the month of September, 1605, a pilgrimage to Pilgrimage 
St. Winifred’s Well, in Flintshire, was undertaken byfred’sWeii. 
Garnet, accompanied by a large party of Koman Catho¬ 
lics. The performance of this extraordinary religious 
ceremony, at this precise point of time, when the 
Parliament was expected to meet on the ensuing 
3rd of October, and the Powder Plot was on the eve 
of its execution, is undoubtedly a circumstance en¬ 
titled to much weight in considering the question of 
Garnet’s implication in the guilt of the conspiracy. It 
appears, from various examinations, that the party 
consisted of about thirty persons, among whom were 

# Interlocution, March 2nd, 1605-6. Appendix, No. II. Bellar- 
mine having characterized Garnet as a man “vitae sanctitate 
incomparabilis ” [Responsio Torti, p. 65], Bishop Andrews observes, 

“ De sanctitate ejus, vellem mitteres; atque utinam de sobrietate 
dicere posses, vix enim est, ut que sobrie non bibat, sancte vivat, vel 
sanctitatem sibi veram comparare possit. Ille vero quam ssepe non 
sobrius, nimis multis notum; quod tu, nisi incomparabilem ejus 
sanctitatem prcedicasses, a me nunquam audiisses.” Tortura Torti, 
p. 228 [Edit. 1851, p. 272]. 


180 


GARNET’S JOURNEY TO COUGHTON. 


Garnet and Anne Vaux, Lady Digby, Brooksby and 
his wife, Ambrose Rookwood and his wife, a priest 
named Fisher, and many other persons both male and 
female. The pilgrimage which occupied about a 
fortnight, commenced at Goathurst, Sir Everard 
Digby’s house, in Buckinghamshire, and proceeded 
by Daventry to John Grant’s house at Norbrook, and 
Robert Winter’s at Huddington, and thence through 
Shrewsbury to Holt in Flintshire. The ladies of 
the company went barefoot from Holt to the Well, 
where all remained a whole night ; and the party 
afterwards returned by the same route, through the 
midland counties, to Goathurst.* It is material to 
observe not only that Rookwood, one of the avowed 
conspirators, was a party to this pilgrimage, but that 
on their progress the pilgrims rested at the houses of 
John Grant and Robert AVinter, at each of which 
mass was said by Garnet. It is scarcely conceivable 
that this unusual proceeding, undertaken at the express 
suggestion of Garnet, by persons actively concerned in 
the Plot, within a month of its proposed execution, 
should not have had reference to the great blow then 
about to be struck for the Roman Catholic church. 

After the pilgrimage to St. Winifred’s Well, Garnet, 
coughton. together with Mrs. Anne Vaux and Mrs. Brooksby, 
her sister, remained at Goathurst for several weeks ; 
and on the 29th of October, a few days only before 
the proposed meeting of Parliament, he travelled with 

1 

* Examination of William Handy, November 27th, 1605. State- 
Paper Office. 


REMOVES FROM COUGHTON TO HENDLIP. 


181 


Lady Digby, Anne Vaux, Mrs. Brooksby, and the 
whole family of Sir Everard Digby, to Coughton, in 
Warwickshire, and thus placed himself in the immediate 

neighbourhood of the general rendezvous of the con- 

9 * 

spirators. At this place Garnet and Greenway received 
the letter from Digby and Catesby, by Bates, containing 
the account of the discovery of the Plot, which has 
been above particularly alluded to. The suspicious 
journey to Coughton formed one of the most material 
circumstances in the evidence produced against the 
Jesuits. 

For some time after the capture of the conspirators 
at Holbeach, Garnet remained at Coughton, not with¬ 
out much uneasiness, though no proclamation had 
issued against him; but about the 16th of December, 
a Jesuit, named Hall or Oldcorne, who was domestic 
priest to Mr. Abington, of Hendlip Hall, near Wor¬ 
cester, sent for him to conduct him thither, assuring 
him that he would be welcome to Mr. Abington and 
his lady, and that he might remain at their house in 
greater security than at Coughton. Garnet readily 
availed himself of this invitation, and with Anne 
Yaux removed at once to Hendlip, where he remained 
until his apprehension. Previously, however, to his 
removal he sent a letter to the Lords of the Council, 
strongly protesting his innocence of the whole trans¬ 
action. 

Hendlip Hall, a spacious mansion, situated about 
four miles from Worcester, was one of the most re¬ 
markable houses in England ; and having been pulled 


Garnet re¬ 
moves from 
Coughton to 
Hendlip. 


Description 
of Hendlip 
Hall. 


182 


DESCRIPTION OF HENDLIP HALL. 


down only a few years ago, must be remembered 
by many persons now living. The date of 1572 
appeared in one of the parlours, and the greater part 
of the house was built at the latter end of Queen 
Elizabeth’s reign by John Abington, cofferer to the 
Queen, and a zealous partizan of the Queen of Scots. 
When the execution of the rigorous laws against 
Roman Catholics began to be enforced, his son, Thomas 
Abington, (who was a Papist, and had been confined 
for some years in the Tower for recusancy,) in order to 
afford protection to the proscribed priests who resorted 
to him, furnished the house with those ingeniously- 
contrived hiding-places, which we have above men¬ 
tioned as common in Catholic dwellings. “ There is 
scarcely an apartment,” says an author,* who ac¬ 
curately describes Hendlip as it existed only a few 
years ago, “ that has not secret ways of going in or 
going out; some have back staircases concealed in the 
walls ; others have places of retreat in their chimneys ; 
some have trap-doors, and all present a picture of 
gloom, insecurity, and suspicion.” Its situation, too, 
upon the summit of the highest ground in the neigh¬ 
bourhood, with an unintercepted prospect on all sides, 
afforded peculiar facilities for a timely observance of 
the approach of dangerous visitors. 

For several weeks Garnet remained sufficiently 
concealed in this singular mansion, dwelling ordinarily 
with Mr. and Mrs. Abington, Anne Vaux, and 
Father Hall, and only secreting himself more closely 
* Beauties of England, vol. xv. part i. p. 184. 


INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SEARCH AT HENDLIP. 


183 


when strangers came to the house. The appearance 
of the proclamation against him, conjointly with 
Gerard and Green way, rendered greater precaution 
necessary; for the facilities of Hendlip for concealment 
being well known to the government, directions were 
immediately given for its examination; and Sir Henry 
Bromley, of Holt Castle, a neighbouring magistrate, 
was commissioned by the Lords of the Council to Investraent 
invest the house, and to search rigorously all the ofHendll P- 
apartments. As he approached with his company, 

Garnet and Hall retired to one of the numerous 
secret receptacles, and their respective servants, 

Owen and Chambers, to another. The following 
instructions* given by Lord Salisbury to Sir Henry 
Bromley on this occasion are characteristic of the 
tune:—“ In the search, first to observe the parlour 
where they use to dine and sup; in the east part of 
that parlour it is conceived there is some vault, 
which to discover you must take care to draw down 
the wainscot, whereby the entry into the vault may 
be discovered. And the lower parts of the house 
must be tried with a broach, by putting the same 
into the ground some foot or two, to try whether 
there may be perceived some timber, which if there be, 
there must be some vault underneath it. For the 
upper rooms, you must observe whether they be more 
in breadth than the lower rooms, and look in which 
places the rooms be enlarged; by pulling up some 
boards you may discover some vaults. Also, if it 
* From tlie State-Paper Office. 


184 


SEARCH AT HENDLIP HALL. 


appear that there be some corners to the chimneys and 
the same boarded, if the boards be taken away there 
will appear some. If the walls seem to be thick and 
covered with wainscot, being tried with a gimlet, if it 
strike not the wall, but go through, some suspicion is 
to be had thereof. If there be any double loft, some 
two or three feet, one above another, in such places 
any may be harboured privately. Also if* there be a 
loft towards the roof of the house, in which there 
appears no entrance out of any other place or lodging, 
it must of necessity be opened and looked into, for 
these be ordinary places of hovering .” * 

When Sir Henry Bromley arrived at Hendlip, on 
Monday the 20th of January, Mr. Abington was 
absent; but his lady, who was the sister of Lord 
Mounteagle, and the person by whom the warning to 
that nobleman has been supposed to have been sent, 
delivered her keys, and professed to give every en¬ 
couragement to the search. The house was surrounded 

* This word is here used in its original sense of “ hiding,” which 
seems to have been its exclusive signification until about the close 
of the sixteenth century. Thus Sir Nicholas Throckmorton writes 
in 1559 : “ These men lye still hovering about these parts,” &c.— 
Forbes’s Full View, vol. i. p. 251. And Spenser— 

“ It was scornefull Braggadocliio 
That with his servant Trompard hovered there.” 

Faery Queen, book iii. canto 10. 

Shakespeare shows the word in its transition state. When used by 
the witches in Macbeth— 

“ Hover through the fog and filthy air,” 
the word partakes of the ancient meaning. In the exclamation of 
Hamlet— 

“ Save me, and hover o’er me with your wings,” 
it has altogether the modern signification. 


SEARCH AT HENDLIP HALL. 


185 


with men, all the approaches to it being carefully 
watched and guarded, and every chamber, cellar, and 
loft rigidly and repeatedly examined. The following 
letter* from Sir Henry Bromley to the Earl of Salis¬ 
bury, dated the 23d of January, the fourth day after 
the commencement of the search, shows what progress 
had then been made towards the discovery of the 
fugitives:— 

“ My especial good Lord,—I have pursued the 
service your lordship and the rest of the Lords have 
imposed on me for the search of the traitors; and 
gave it for gone, for that I could never get from Mrs. 
Abington nor any other in the house the least glim¬ 
mering of any of these traitors, or any other treason to 
be here. Some presumption I had (besides your lord¬ 
ship’s commandment) to continue me here, as finding 
beds warm, and sundry parcels of apparel and books 
and writing, that showed some scholars used. Mr. 
Abington was not at home when I came, but was gone 
to Pepperhill, to Mr. Talbot’s, and came home on 
Monday night. I showed him his majesty’s procla¬ 
mation and my warrant for the search; but he ab¬ 
solutely denieth that he knoweth or ever saw any of 
these parties but Gerard, in his youth, some four or 
five and twenty years ago, and never saw him sithence. 
I did never hear so impudent liars as I find here—all 
recusants, and all resolved to confess nothing, what 
danger soever they incur. I holding my resolution to 


* From the State-Paper Office. 


186 


SEARCH AT HENDLIP HALL. 


keep watch, longer (though I was out of all hope to 
find any man or any thing), yet at last, yesterday, 
being Wednesday, found a number of Popish trash hid 
under boards in three or four several places. The 
particularities I refer to this bearer. Wednesday night 
late I went to my house to take my rest, being much 
wearied, leaving my brother the charge of the house. 
So that this Thursday morning two are come forth for 
hunger and cold, that give themselves other names ; 
but surely one of them, I trust, will prove Greenway, 
and I think the other be Hall. I have yet presumption 
that there is one or two more in the house; wherefore 
I have resolved to continue the guard yet a day or two. 
I could by no means persuade the gentlewoman of the 
house to depart the house without I should have 
carried her, which I held uncivil, as being so nobly 
born; as I have and do undergo the greater difficulties 
thereby. I have sent you the examinations of the 
parties which I have committed, and do expect your 
lordship’s pleasure what shall be done with them. 
More at large your lordship may hear either from the 
bearer, or from myself at my coming up. In the mean 
time, I trust his Majesty and your lordships will accept 
of my willingness and readiness to do you better 
service when I shall be commanded. In the mean 
time, I most humbly take my leave of your lordship, 
remaining ever, at your lordship’s command, 

“ Hendlip, this 23d of Henry Bromley. 

“January, very late. 

“ P.S. I desire to know what you will have done 


187 


DISCOVERY OF GARNET AND HALL. 

with Mr. Abington. I think good in the mean time to 
restrain him at a magistrate’s house at Worcester.” 

The two persons mentioned in the above letter, as 
having been forced from their hiding-places by cold 
and hunger, were not the Jesuits, but Chambers and 
Owen, their servants. They seemed half starved, and 
declared that since their enclosure they had only eaten 
one apple between them. Though disappointed in 
obtaining at this time the main objects of their search, 

Sir Henry Bromley and his company were satisfied 
that some of the priests were still in the house, and 
the blockade and examination were continued for 
several days, and might have been continued much 
longer without a successful result had not an unex¬ 
pected incident occurred to shorten their labours. 

It will be remembered that after Robert Winter and recovery of 
Stephen Littleton had been discovered and apprehended hST* and 
at Hagley, Humphrey Littleton, together with Perkes 
and his sister and servant, who had sheltered the fugi¬ 
tives in his barn, were sent to Worcester to be tried for 
misprision of treason. A special commission of Oyer 
and Terminer was soon afterwards issued, directed to 
Sir Richard Lewkenor and the Sheriff and several magis¬ 
trates of the county of Worcester, to try them. They 
were all found guilty and received judgment of death 
on the 26 th of January. On the following day Hum¬ 
phrey Littleton signified that if the execution of the 
sentence were respited, he could render good service 
to the King by revealing certain matters relating to 


188 HUMPHREY LITTLETON’S DISCLOSURE. 

tlie Jesuits and priests supposed to be implicated in 
the Plot. The respite was granted, and he then de¬ 
clared to a magistrate, who was sent to receive his 
statement,* “that having been doubtful in his own 
mind whether he ought not to have caused Robert 
Winter and Stephen Littleton to be apprehended, he 
had conferred with Father Hall the Jesuit whether he 
might with a safe conscience discover them or not.” 
He said that “ he related to Hall the judgment of God 
showed upon those which were any ways actors in 
these treasons, and that the heinousness of the offence 
was a scandal to their religion.” Whereunto Hall 
answered, that the action was good, and seemed to 
approve of it, alledging an example from one of the 
Kings of France, who upon his sick-bed made a vow, 
if he recovered, to go to the Holy Land to fight against 
the enemies of God; which vow he performed, and 
went twice to the Holy Land with great armies, being 
the first time wholly discomfited and losing most of his 
men by a mighty plague; and the second time, dying 
himself of the same contagion with many more of his 
men,—no sickness or other ill-fortune befalling his 
enemies.’ And the said Hall alleged ‘that albeit 
the action had not good success, yet it was commend¬ 
able and good, and not to be measured by the event, 
but by the goodness of the cause when it was first 
undertaken.’ Humphrey Littleton further said “ that 
he believed Hall to be at that time at Hendlip; and 

*' Humphrey Littleton’s Relation, January 26th, 1605-6, at Wor¬ 
cester—Add. MSS. in British Museum, No. 6178, p. 697. 


SEARCH AT HENDLIP RENEWED. 189 

that his servant who was then a prisoner at Worcester, 
could, as he thought, go directly to the secret places 
where Hall lay hid.” 

Upon the information thus furnished by Humphrey 
Littleton, directions for the apprehension of Hall were 
given. As Hencllip was close at hand, a communi¬ 
cation was at once made to Sir Henry Bromley; and 
the searchers being stimulated by a direct object of 
pursuit, redoubled their labours. They do not, how¬ 
ever, after all, appear to have discovered the concealed 
cell, until the two Jesuits, overcome at last by the 
confinement and foul air, voluntarily came forth into 
one of the chambers of the house.* Garnet afterwards 
said that “ if they could have had liberty for only half 
a day from the blockade, they could so have eased the 
place from books and furniture, that they could have 
abidden there a quarter of a year.” A. contemporary 
manuscript says, that “ marmalade and other sweetmeats 
were found there lying by them; but their better 
maintenance had been by a quill or reed, through a 
little hole in a chimney that backed another chimney 
into a gentlewoman’s chamber, and by that passage 
cawdle, broths, and warm drinks had been conveyed 
to them.” t Their inconvenient lodging in the cell, 
and the manner of their apprehension cannot be better 
described than by inserting some extracts from a nar- 

* On January 30th Sir Henry Bromley informs Lord Salisbury 
that “ now surely they had taken Garnet and Hall.”—State-Paper 
Office. 

f Harl. MSS., No. 360. Nash’s Worcestershire. 


Garnet’s 

Narrative. 




190 GARNET’S PERSONAL NARRATIVE. 

rative* in Garnet’s handwriting, addressed to Anne 
Vaux, soon after his commitment, and intercepted by 
the Lieutenant of the Tower. 

“ After we had been in the hole (says Garnet) 
seven days and seven nights, and some odd hours, 
every man may well think we were well wearied; 
and indeed so it was, for we continually sat, save that 
sometimes we could half stretch ourselves, the place 
being not high enough: and we had our legs so 
straitened that we could not sitting find place for 
them, so that we both were in continual pain of our 
legs; and both our legs, especially mine, were much 
swollen, and mine continued so till I came to the 
Tower. 

“ We were very merry and content within, and 
heard the searchers every day most curious over us, 
which made me indeed think the place would be 
found. And if I had known in time of the proclama¬ 
tion against me, I would have come forth, and offered 
myself to Mr. Abington, whether he would or no, to 
have been his prisoner. 

“When we came forth we appeared like two 
ghosts; yet I the stronger though my weakness lasted 
longest. The fellow that found us ran away for fear, 
thinking we would have shot a pistol at him; but 
there came needless company to assist him, and we bad 
them ‘ be quiet and we would come forth.’ So they 
helped us out very charitably. We had escaped if the 


* State-Paper Office. See Appendix, No. I. 


GARNET’S PERSONAL NARRATIVE. 


191 


two first hidden soldiers had not come out so soon; for 
when they found them, they were curious to find 
their place. The search at Hendlip was not for me, 
but for Mr. Hall, as an abettor of Robert Winter. 
Then came a second charge to seek for Mr. Gerard ; 
of me never no expectation ; so that it was only God’s 
pleasure to have it as it is. ‘ Fiat voluntas ejus /’ 

“ Sir Henry, by the proclamation, knew me straight, 
and made of me exceedingly, saying I was a learned 
man and a worthy, &c. I acknowledged not my 
name, but referred all to my meeting with my Lord of 
Salisbury, who would know me. Yet never did I 
deny my name to Sir Henry, but desired him to call 
me as he would, for he called me by divers names, but 
my most common was Garnet. I told him that in 
truth it was not for any discourtesy, but that I would 
not, in the places we are, be made an obloquy; but 
when I came to London I would not be ashamed of my 
name. 

“We were carried to Worcester in his coach, where 
he had promised us to place us in some baily’s or 
other citizen’s house; but when we came there he 
said he could not do as he wished, but must send us to 
the gaol. I said, ‘ A God’s name ! but I hope you 
will provide we have not irons, for we are lame 
already, and shall not be able to ride after to London.’ 

‘ Well,’ said he, ‘ I will think of it,’ and set me to 
rest in a private chamber, with one to look to me, 
because he would avoid the people’s gazing. When 
he had despatched his business he sent for me, and 


192 


GARNET’S PERSONAL NARRATIVE. 


told me we should go with him to his house. So we 
did in coach, and were exceedingly well used, and 
dined and supped with him and his every day. 

“ On Candlemas-day he made a great dinner to 
end Christmas, and in the midst of dinner he sent for 
wine to drink health to the King; and we all were 
bare. There came, accompanying the wine, a white 
wax candle lighted, taken at Hendlip, with Jesus on 
one side and Maria on the other. So I desired to see 
the candle, and took it in my hands, and gave it to 
Mr. Hall, and said, ‘ I was glad yet that I had carried 
a holy candle on Candlemas-day.’ So I pledged the 
health; yet, with favour, as they said, in a reasonable 
glass. 

“ I parted from the gentlewomen, who were very 
kind to me, as also all the house, who were with us 
continually, insomuch that Sir Henry was afraid we 
would pervert them; and the like caveat he hath 
given to my keeper here, whom I have sent to him 
sometimes. I desired them all to think well of me 
till they saw whether I could justify myself in this cause. 

4 4 All the way to London I was passing well used 
at the King’s charge, and that by express' orders from 
my Lord Salisbury. I had always the best horse in 
the company, yet was much distempered the first and 
last night.* I had some bickering with ministers by 

* On February 5th Sir H. Bromley writes to Lord Salisbury from 
Wycombe, inclosing a list of bis prisoners. He says, “ Mr. Garnet is 
but a weak and wearisome traveller. He hath been three days in 
coming hither, but I hope to bring him to London to-morrow 
evening.”—State-Paper Office. 


GARNET’S PERSONAL NARRATIVE. 193 

the way. Two very good scholars, and courteous, Mr. 
Abbott* and Mr. Barlow, met us at an inn; but two 
other rude fellows met us on the way, whose dis¬ 
courtesy I rewarded with plain words, and so adieu. 
They were discharged by authority.” 

The prisoners on their arrival in London were 
lodged in the Gatehouse, and a few days afterwards 
were examined before the privy council. “ As I went 
to the council-table at Whitehall,” says Garnet, in 
continuation of his narrative, “ a great multitude sur¬ 
rounded me, both going and coming : one said, ‘ There 
is a provincialanother, ‘ There goeth a young Pope. ’ 
When I came to the Council I kneeled, and was bid 
stand, and I asked whether my letter had been seen. 
All denied it. So I made my true protestation of 
innocency in this case. They wished I would not so 
earnestly protest, for they had sure proofs. So my 
Lord of Salisbury first began, and his interrogatories 
and my answers, with some intermingled disputations, 
especially of equivocation, yet with all courtesy, lasted 
three hours almost. All these interrogatories were 
about the authority of the Pope, and my Lord Salisbury 
said, ‘ You see, Mr. Garnet, we deal not with you in 
matters of religion, as of your priesthood or the real 
presence, but in this high point in which you must 
satisfy the King that he may know what to trust unto.’ 

* The persons here mentioned were probably^Dr. Robert Abbott, 
the brother of the Archbishop of Canterbury, at this time one of the 
King’s chaplains, and soon afterwards Master of Baliol College, 
Oxford; and Dr. William Barlow, afterwards Archdeacon of Salis¬ 
bury, and chaplain to Prince Henry. 


K 


194 


GARNET’S PERSONAL NARRATIVE. 


I was glad to have this occasion to be accounted a 
traitor without the powder-house rather than within: 
and thinking myself also obliged to profess the faith of 
the supremacy, answered in many articles according to 
their demands plainly, yet modestly ; and with great 
moderation also of rigorous opinions, affirming that 
none could attempt violence against the King, no, not 
the Pope commanding; that I thought he was not ex¬ 
communicate ; that in case one were excommunicated, 
none could execute the sentence without the Pope’s 
consent. 

“ After some rest, I had another hour before them 
with Mr. Attorney, to small purpose, for I refused 
to acknowledge any of my own names but Garnet, or 
to name any person which might be indamaged by me; 
though after, in my other examinations, I thought 
better otherwise, in respect that all was known before, 
and I charged with treasons in some special places; 
but I am sure I have hurt nobody. 

“On St. Valentine’s day I came to the Tower, 
where I have a very fine chamber, but was very sick 
the two first nights with ill lodging. I am allowed 
every meal a draught of excellent claret wine; and I 
am liberal with myself and neighbours, for good 
respects, to allow also of my own purse some sack : 
and this is the greatest charge I shall be at hereafter, 
for now fire will shortly be unnecessary, if I live so 
long, whereof I am very uncertain, and as careless. 

“ Mr. Attorney biddeth me to provide to answer a 
certain conference of mine and GreenwelPs; but I hope 


ANNE VAUX ARRESTED AND EXAMINED. 


195 


I shall well enough, though I doubt not that Mr. 
Catesby hath feigned many such things for to induce 
others. And I doubt not, if I may have justice, but to 
clear myself of this powder;—as for other treasons, I 
tell them I care not for a thousand. 

4 

“ In truth, I thank God I am and have been in- 
trepidus , and herein I marvel at myself, having had 
such great apprehension before ; but it is God’s grace ! 
And I often fear torture : yet it is the same God, and I 
cannot be tortured but for justice (that is, either to 
wrong myself or others); as I cannot be condemned 
but for justice, (that is, for not betraying such as 
either I had diverted from their purpose, or was never 
acquainted with their purpose at all.)”* 

Anne Yaux, to whom this intercepted narrative is 
addressed, remained at Hendlip for some weeks after 
Sir Henry Bromley’s departure with his prisoners, and 
then with Mrs. Abington followed Garnet to London. 
Shortly after her arrival in London she was arrested 
and sent to the Tower, where she appears to have been 
treated with unnecessary hardship and ignominy; but 
though she was often and rigorously examined, she 
denied all knowledge of the Plot, and resolutely re¬ 
fused to answer any questions which might bring other 
persons into difficulty; and she seems to have made no 
discovery which tended in the slightest degree to im¬ 
plicate Garnet. Of the subsequent fate of this unfor- 

* The whole of Garnet’s narrative is given in the Appendix, 
No. I. It is an important paper, as containing allusions unreservedly 
and incidentally made to Garnet’s precedent knowledge of the Plot. 

K 2 


Anne Vaux 
sent to the 
Tower and 
Examined. 


196 


GARNET’S EXAMINATION. 


Garnet’s 

Examina¬ 

tion. 


tunate lady, whose high birth, courage, and devoted 
attachment to Garnet, whatever may have been the 
nature of their connexion, cannot fail to excite interest 
and compassion, no traces are to be found. It is 
probable that she and her sister followed Garnet’s 
advice by spending the remainder of their days in some 
foreign religious house. The name of Yaus or Vaux 
is mentioned among those English Eoman Catholic 
ladies who, about the beginning of the seventeenth 
century, founded several foreign nunneries upon the 
principles of the Jesuits.* 

During the first ten days of his imprisonment in the 
Tower, Garnet was subjected to almost daily examina¬ 
tions. But neither the treacherous courtesy and com¬ 
pliments of Lord Salisbury and Sir Edward Coke, nor 
the rougher treatment of the Lieutenant, could draw 
from him any direct admission of his participation in 
the Plot, nor any inculpation of Gerard and Greenway. 
The words of encouragement and approbation of the 
Plot, said by Batesf to have been uttered by Green way 
to him in confession, he denied to have been spoken, 
saying that Bates himself had afterwards repented of 
his false declaration, and had excused himself, on the 
ground “ that he had done it to save his life.”J But 
he admitted that if the words were actually spoken by 

* Wadsworth’s Englisli-Spanish Pilgrims. 

f See ante , p. 163. 

t Endsemon-Joannes professes to give an extract from a letter 
from Bates just before his execution, declaring his penitence for 
what he had stated respecting Garnet and Greenway. See Apologia 
pro Garneto, p. 6. 


TORTURE THREATENED. 


197 


Greenway, they could not be justified. Being in¬ 
terrogated respecting his interview with Bates at 
Coughton,* he acknowledged the receipt of a letter by 
the hands of Bates, signed by Sir Everard Digby and 
Catesby, and that Bates informed him of the Plot and 
its failure, but denied that the letter contained a word 
upon that subject, or that Greenway had used any 
such language on that occasion as Bates had imputed 
to him.f One of Sir Everard Digby’s servants had 
declared that two days before the meeting at Dun- 
church, Garnet had said “ it were good that Catholics, 
at the beginning of parliament, should pray for some 
good success toward the Catholic cause.” J Some of 
the examiners, having founded a question upon this 
statement, Garnet firmly denied that any such words 
had been spoken by him. He also entirely denied all 
knowledge of either of the embassies to the King of 
Spain, in which Tresham had declared that he was 
implicated. 

The commissioners being entirely convinced by the 
evidence in their possession that several of these denials 
of Garnet were untrue, threatened him with torture; 
to which he says that he replied in the words of St. 
Basil to the Emperor Yalens, under a similar threat, 
“ Minare ista pueris.” Notwithstanding this threat, 

# See ante, p. 164. 

f Garnet’s Examination, February 13th, 1605-6. — State-Paper 
Office. 

X William Handy’s Examination, November 27th, 1605.—State- 
Paper Office. 


Death of 
Owen by 
Suicide. 


I 




198 TORTURE AND SUICIDE 

however, and the confident assertion of some Roman 
Catholic writers to the contrary, it is clear that Garnet 
was never, during his examination, actually exposed 
to the torture. Garnet himself, in his intercepted 
correspondence, never hints that any violence of the 
kind was offered to him, though he says he expected 
it; and on his trial he admits the kind usage he had 
always received in the Tower. Lord Salisbury also 
declares that the King and the Lords Commissioners 
were “ well contented to draw all from him without 
racking, or any such bitter torments.” Dr. Abbott 
says, in his Antilogia, that the Commissioners were ex¬ 
pressly ordered by the King not to apply the torture 
to him—a restriction which Abbott obviously con¬ 
sidered injudicious. Casaubon also mentions the same 
fact. Probably his character, as Superior of the Jesuits, 
and the respect entertained for him by foreign am¬ 
bassadors, and the whole body of Roman Catholics, 
procured for him this unusual exemption. But the 
two servants, Chambers and Owen, did not experience 
the same forbearance. The death of Owen occurred 
under circumstances which fully justified the suspicions 
entertained, and freely expressed by Catholics, that he 
expired under torture. 

Owen had been the confidential servant of Garnet 
for several years, and it might well be supposed that 
important disclosures would be procured from him. 
On the 26 th of February he was examined in the 
Tower, and positively denied that he knew, or had 
ever seen or heard of either Garnet or Hall, and 


OF OWEN. 


199 


obstinately adhered to this obvious and stupid false¬ 
hood. On the 1st of March he was again examined, 
and on his showing a disposition to adopt the same 
course of denial, his thumbs were tied together and 
he was suspended by them to a beam, while the ques¬ 
tions were repeated to him. He then admitted his 
knowledge of Garnet, and his attendance upon him 
at Hendlip; but his confession on this occasion, which 
is at the State-Paper Office, disclosed no matters of 
any importance, and he was therefore informed that 
at the next examination he would be placed on the 
rack. Complaining of illness the next day, his keeper 
carried him a chair to use at his dinner, and with his 
food a blunt-pointed knife was brought for the purpose 
of cutting his meat. Owen finding fault with the 
coldness of his broth, besought the keeper to put it on 
the fire for him in an adjoining apartment; and as soon 
as the man had left the cell for this purpose, ripped up 
his belly in a frightful manner with the knife. The 
keeper on his return observed the pale and ghastly 
countenance of the prisoner, and perceiving blood 
sprinkled on the floor, threw off the straw which the 
unfortunate man had drawn over him, and discovered 
what had happened. He then ran to inform the 
Lieutenant, who hastened to the cell with several guests 
who happened to be at dinner with him. In answer to 
their questions the dying man declared that he had 
committed the act of self-destruction from the appre¬ 
hension that severer torture than he had suffered the 
day before might force from him admissions injurious 


200 CONFERENCES BETWEEN GARNET AND HALL. 


Conferences 
in the Tower 
between 
Garnet and 
Hall. 


to his Roman Catholic friends. He expired soon after¬ 
wards, and an inquest being held on his body in the 
Tower, a verdict of felo-de-se was returned. The above 
statement is circumstantially made by Dr. Abbott in his 
Antilogia,* in refutation of what he calls the calumnies 
of the Jesuits respecting the mode of Owen’s death. 
There is perhaps no great difference, between the 
guilt of homicide by actual torture, and that of urging 
to suicide by the insupportable threat of its renewal. 

The examination of Garnet and Hall having failed 
to draw any disclosures of importance from them, and 
torture being forbidden, in their case the Commissioners 
adopted a stratagem which had been employed in the 
case of Robert Winter and Fawkes, by means of which 
it was confidently expected that the desired evidence 
for the conviction of the priests might be obtained. 
Garnet and Hall were placed in adjoining cells, and 
they were both informed by a keeper, with strong in¬ 
junctions to caution and secrecy, that by opening a 
concealed door they would be enabled to confer together. 
In the meantime two persons, Edward Forset,t a 

# Antilogia, p. 114. 

f There is a short account of Forset in Wood’s Athens© Oxoni- 
enses. He was the author of a quaint and fanciful treatise published 
in 1606, entitled, ‘ A comparative Discourse of the Bodies natural and 
politique.’ In this book he alludes to the Gunpowder Plot, in the 
inflated style not unfrequently used at that time : “ The verie relating 
or mentioning thereof (lie says) dawntetli my hail; with horror, even 
shaking the verie pen in my hand, whilst I think what a shake, 
what a blast, or what a storme (as they termed it), they ment so 
suddenly to have raised for the blowing up, shivering into peeces 
and whurling about of those honourable, anointed, and sacred bodies 
which the Lord would not have to be so much as touched.” 


CONFERENCES BETWEEN GARNET AND HALL. 201 

magistrate and a man of character and learning, and 
Locherson, a secretary of Lord Salisbury, who had pre¬ 
viously acted a similar part in the case of Robert Winter 
and Fawkes, were placed in such a situation between 
the cells that they could overhear much of what was 
said by the prisoners.* 

The discoveries to which these overheard conversa¬ 
tions led the way were more important than any evi¬ 
dence which they furnished in themselves. The 
minutes appear to have been taken with caution and 
candour; but the listeners heard the conversations but 
imperfectly, and many things were reported by them, 
the verbal accuracy of which could not be relied upon. 
.Nevertheless, quite enough was revealed to form the 
foundation for a more direct and searching examination 
of the prisoners. Until these conferences had taken 
place, Garnet had strenuously denied all acquaintance 
with the Plot previously to the receipt of Digby’s 
letter at Cough ton; and besides the unsupported and 
suspicious testimony of Bates, no evidence had been 

* The notes of these several conversations, or interlocutions, as 
they are quaintly called, with the exception of one of the 21st of 
February, are still in existence. They are curious documents ; and 
as they throw light upon the subject of Garnet’s guilt they are 
inserted in the Appendix, No. II. Three of them are literal 
transcripts of the originals at the State-Paper Office, in Locherson’s 
writing. The original of that dated 25th February is not to be 
found at the State-Paper Office, but it is given in the Appendix 
from a copy among the Tanner Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library. 
A stratagem precisely similar to that employed against Garnet and 
Hall was used successfully, in 1807, to obtain evidence against 
Holloway and Haggerty upon their trial for the murder of Mr. Steele 
at Hounslow. 

K 3 


202 CONFERENCES BETWEEN GARNET AND HALL. 

obtained which tended to implicate him more deeply 
in the transaction. Expressions were, however, used 
by him in the course of these interlocutions, which 
indicated a previous knowledge of the main design of 
the conspirators. For instance, in the first of the 
conferences on the 21st of February, Garnet says, “ I 
must needs confess White Webbs, that we met there; 
but I will answer it thus,—that I was there but knew 
nothing of the matter.” Again, in the same conference 
he says, “ Perhaps they will press me with certain 
prayers that I made against the time of the parliament, 
for the good success of that business,—which indeed is 
true. But I may answer that well, for I will say it is 
true that I did doubt that at this next parliament there 
would be more severe laws made against the Catholics, 
and therefore I made those prayers. And that will 
answer it well enough.” Again, in the conference on 
the 25th of February, Garnet said “he was charged 
about certain prayers to be said for the success of this 
business at the beginning of the parliament. Indeed 
upon All-Hallows day * we used those prayers, and 
then I did repeat to them two Latin verses,—which 
both prayers and verses, Garnet did now rehearse to 
Hall confessing that he made them both.” In the con¬ 
ference of the 25th of February, he said also that 
“ he was charged with some advice he should give in 
Queen Elizabeth’s time of the blowing up of the 
Parliament House with gunpowder. Indeed, I told 
them at that time it was lawful, but wished them to 


* November 1st. 


THEY DENY THE CONFERENCES. 203 

do their best to save as many as they could that were 
innocents.” Besides these particular indications, it is 
impossible to peruse the notes of these conferences 
without being struck with the remarkable fact, that 
although speaking the whole secrets of his heart un¬ 
reservedly to his friend, Garnet does not utter a word 
in denial of his knowledge of the Plot and his acquies¬ 
cence in it;—nor a word from which it can be implied 
that in his conscience he knew that he was untruly 
accused in that respect. On the contrary, the whole 
scope and object of his conversation is the arrange¬ 
ment of the means by which he may baffle examina¬ 
tion and elude detection,—his only care being to 
“ contrive safe answers,” and—to use his own language 
—“ to wind himself out of this matter.” 

Garnet and Hall, on being charged with these con¬ 
ferences by the Commissioners, firmly denied that any 
such had taken place. Hall first admitted the fact, 
probably under torture ; but Garnet, even when he 
was shown Hall’s confession, positively declared before 
the Commissioners, that 44 he never had any speech 
or conference with him, and that Hall might accuse 
himself falsely, but that he would not accuse himself.” * 

* Garnet’s Examination, March 5th, 1605-6. “ Being told, and 

showed the examination of Hall under his own hand, whereby Hall 
chargeth him that they had divers conferences together since their 
coming into the Tower, the one being on the one side of the door, 
and the other on the other, saitli, that he never had any speech or 
conference with him, and that Hall may accuse himself falsely, hut 
that he will not accuse himself.” 

(Signed) “ Henry Garnet.” 

Garnet afterwards justified this manifest falsehood on the Jesuit- 


Garnet and 
Hall deny 
the Confer¬ 
ences. 


204 


GARNET’S ADMISSIONS. 


Garnet’s 

Admission. 


Lord Salisbury said, on the trial, that he denied this 
“ so stiffly upon his soul, reiterating it with so many 
detestable execrations, as it wounded the hearts of the 
lords to hear him.” Finding, however, that it would 
be to no purpose to persist in denying a fact which 
had been established beyond all doubt, he at length ac¬ 
knowledged the conferences, and was gradually drawn 
on by expert examinations to admit a variety of crimi¬ 
natory facts and circumstances, from the effect of 
which he afterwards found it impossible to extricate 
himself. 

He first confessed two facts which in former exami¬ 
nations he had denied, namely, that he had written to 
the Jesuit Baldwin in commendation of Fawkes, when 
he went over to the Netherlands, shortly before Easter, 
1605, to obtain the co-operation of Sir William Stanley 
and Owen in the plot; and also that he had written to 
the same Jesuit to commend Sir Edmund Baynham on 
his mission from the conspirators in September, imme¬ 
diately before the meeting of Parliament. At last, 

ical principle that no man was bound to charge himself until the 
matter of the charge was proved aliunde. In an intercepted letter 
“to the Fathers and Brethren of the Society” written on Palm 
Sunday (after his trial), he thus relates this story :—“ When the 
lords inquired of me concerning my conference with Hall, I denied 
it. They drove me to many protestations, which I made with 
equivocation. They then said that Hall had confessed the con¬ 
ference. I replied, ‘ That I would not confess it; that Hall might 
accuse himself falsely, but that I would not do so.’ As soon as I 
found that they had sufficient proofs, I held my peace; the lords 
were scandalised at this. But what should I have done? Why 
was I to be denied every lawful means of escape ?”—Abbott’s 
Antilogia, p. 146. 



GARNET’S ADMISSIONS. 


205 


after much difficulty and prevarication, he admitted 
that the design of blowing up the Parliament House 
with gunpowder had been revealed to him in July, 
1605, by Greenway, who had received it in confession 
from Catesby, and, as he believed, also from Thomas 
Winter.* * * § He declared, however, that he endeavoured 
to dissuade Catesby from his purpose, and desired 
Green way to do the same; and that he obtained from 
the former a promise that “ he would not proceed in 
the matter before he had acquainted the Pope 
generally with the state of England, and had taken his 
advice and direction therein.” He said also that he 
advised Catesby to send Sir Edmund Baynham to Pome 
lor that purpose.f He further admitted that Catesby 
and Thomas Winter had, a twelvemonth before, men¬ 
tioned to him generally that a design was on foot 
against the government, in consequence of the King’s 
breach of promise with the Catholics, but without 
explaining the particulars ; and that he then again dis¬ 
couraged all attempts at insurrection to the utmost of 
his power, saying that it was against the express and 
earnest command of Pope Clement VIII., as signified 
to him by a letter from the Father-general of the 
Jesuits. J In one of his examinations§ at this period, 
he stated, that “ about the time of the resistance of the 
Bishop of Hereford’s officers by Catholics (May 1605), 


* Garnet’s Examination, March 12th, 1605-6. 

f Ibid., March 12th, 1605-6. 

t Ibid. r March 13th and 14th, 1605-6. 

§ Ibid., March 12th, 1605-6. 


206 


GARNET’S ADMISSIONS. 


he wrote to the Pope for the staying of all commotions, 
and received answer from the Pope about Midsummer, 
wherewith he acquainted Catesby; and that about the 
beginning of July he wrote again to the Pope, and 
certified that he hoped to stay all general stirs; but, 
for that he feared some particular stratagem , he desired 
the Pope to grant a prohibition under censures. 
Whereunto he received answer about Michaelmas, 
1605, that he (the Pope) was glad that the general 
(stirs) should be protected, and for any particular, he 
thought his general prohibition would serve, and that 
there needed no particular prohibition under censures; 
but if there should be any necessity, upon advertisement 
thereof, he would grant it.” He further stated, that 
in the early part of June then last, at his chamber in 
Thames-street, in London, Catesby propounded a ques¬ 
tion to him in general terms, as to the lawfulness of a 
design intended for the promotion of the Catholic reli¬ 
gion, in the prosecution of which it would be necessary, 
together with many enemies, to destroy some innocent 
Catholic friends.* Garnet says, that, in total ignorance 
of Catesby’s intended application of his answer, he 
replied, that “ in case the object was clearly good, and 
could be effected by no other means, it might be lawful 
among many nocents to destroy some innocents.” 
Greenway, who was present at this conversation, states, 
in his Narrative, that Catesby’s question had no 
intelligible reference to the Powder Plot, but that he 

* Garnet’s Examination, March 6th, 1605-6. Harl. MSS. No. 
360. 



THE PAPAL BREVES. 


207 


referred expressly to his pretended design of serving 
under the Archduke in Flanders against the States. 
He assumed that the general design of fighting for the 
Catholic cause was lawful and meritorious; but he 
put, amongst other instances, the case of attacking a 
particular town defended by the heretical Dutch, in 
sacking which it might happen that some Catholic 
inhabitants might be killed or injured, and inquired 
whether it was justifiable to prosecute a design in 
which this injustice might probably occur? To which, 
as a piece of abstract casuistry, Garnet answered in 
the affirmative. It should be remarked, however, that 
Garnet himself never gave this explanation of the 
conversation, though both on his trial and in the 
course of the previous examinations it was heavily 
pressed against him. 

Garnet further confessed, that, about a year before 
Queen Elizabeth’s death, he had received from the 
Pope’s Nuncio in Flanders two papal breves of 
Clement VIII.; one of which was addressed to the 
lay Catholics, and the other to the Catholic clergy 
of England, together with the copy of a letter of direc¬ 
tions from the Pope to the Nuncio. He stated the 
effect of both the breves to be, “ that none should 
consent to any successor upon Elizabeth’s death, 
however near in blood, who would not give tolera¬ 
tion to Catholics, and with all his might, set 
forward the Catholic religion; and who would not, 
according to the custom of other Catholic princes, 
submit himself to the apostolical see.” The effect of 


The Pope’s 
Breves. 


208 


THE PAPAL BREVES. 


the letter to the Nuncio, he said, was to urge him 
to vigilance, and to enjoin him “ whensoever that 
wretched woman should depart this life (<quandocunque 
cmtingeret miser am illam foeminam ex hdc vita excedere ), 
immediately to certify the event to the Pontiff, and 
circulate the breves in England, in the Pope’s name, 
and upon his authority.” Garnet declared, however, 
that these breves were not in any way directed 
against James, who was, at that time, understood 
to be favourable to the Catholic religion, but against 
other competitors for the crown, amongst whom he 
mentions the Earl of Essex, as “perhaps the most 
mighty of all.”* Garnet stated that he had destroyed 
these breves after the King’s accession, though he 
admitted that he had given them to Catesby and 
Thomas Winter, who showed them to Percy, and also 
to Tresham and Lord Mounteagle. And he admitted 
that Catesby had always founded his argument, when 
dissuaded from any practices against the King, upon 
these breves, saying, that “ he was sure it was lawful; 
for if it was lawful by force of the Pope’s breves to have 
kept the King out, if he was not a Catholic, it was as 
lawful now to put him out, when he had declared 
himself the enemy of Catholics.” 


* Garnet’s statements respecting these breves are contained in 
Examinations of the 13th, 14th, and 2Gth of March, 1G05-6, the 
originals of which are extant at the State-Paper Office; and in an 
Examination of Garnet on March 27th, taken from a copy in the 
Add. MSS. at the British Museum, No. 6178, p. 753. The several 
examinations relating to these breves will be foimd in the Appendix, 
No. III. 




GARNET’S LEGAL OFFENCE. 


209 


The above was the substance of the statements made 
by Garnet before his trial; most of the examinations in 
which they are contained are still extant at the State- 
Paper Office with his signature, or are taken from 
copies, the authenticity of which cannot be reasonably 
doubted. 

Reserving for the present any particular notice of 
the strong presumption raised by these statements, that 
Garnet was, really and morally, a full accomplice in the r 
Plot, it may be remarked that, at all events, they en¬ 
tirely establish his legal responsibility. They distinctly 
show that he was acquainted with the principal design 
of the conspirators,—a fact which, subsequently to the 
interlocutions with Hall, he never attempted to deny. 
Admitting therefore the truth of all the circumstances Garnet’s 
alleged by Garnet and his apologists, by way of pallia- legal offencc ' 
tion;—admitting that he sincerely thought himself 
bound, by the most sacred obligation, not to reveal 
what he had heard only in consequence of a disclosure 
in confession; and giving him credit for earnest en¬ 
deavours to avert the catastrophe, he would still be 
guilty, upon his own admission, of misprision of treason 
by the law of England. The bare knowledge and con¬ 
cealment of treason, without any degree of assent 
thereto, constitutes the crime of misprision of treason, 
and subjects the offender to forfeiture of all his lands 
and goods, and imprisonment for life. The conceal¬ 
ment becomes criminal if the party apprised of the 
treason does not, as soon as possible, reveal it to some 
magistrate; and no religious scruples respecting confes- 


210 


EXECUTION OF HALL. 


sion could by law be allowed as a mitigation of the 
nature or punishment of an offence so dangerous to the 
well-being of society. 

Execution of The Jesuit Hall, Garnet’s companion at Hendlip and 
in the Tower, was sent down to Worcester with 
Mr. Abington and a priest named Strange, to be tried 
under a special commission, and, with Strange and 
several other persons, was executed there on the 7th of 
April, 1606.* Hall is said to have been enrolled in the 
calendar of the Roman Catholic church as a martyr, f 
If by a martyr is to be understood an innocent person 
who suffers death for the sake of religion, it is difficult 
to understand how this Jesuit could be entitled to the 
honour of martyrdom. He was not, indeed, shown to 
have been privy to the Plot previously to its discovery ; 
and the technical offence laid to his charge was un¬ 
doubtedly the relief and succour he had afforded to his 
friend and superior after the proclamation. But there 
is convincing evidence that after the apprehension of 
the principal traitors, if he did not directly express 
approbation of the Plot, he evinced no disposition to 
condemn it. This evidence is contained in a conversa¬ 
tion between him and Humphrey Littleton, the account 
of which is given not only in a declaration of Littleton, 
made after sentence of death was passed upon him, 
but by Hall himself in a voluntary declarationJ still 
extant, in his own handwriting; and it is particularly 

* Winwood’s Memorials, vol. ii. p. 206. 

f Kibadeneira, Catalogus Scriptorum Soc. Jesu, p. 377. Antwerp, 
1613. 

t Hall’s Declaration, March 12th, 1605-6. State-Paper Office. 


« 


HIS CONVERSATION WITH LITTLETON. 211 

deserving of notice as an example of the distorted per¬ 
ception of right and wrong, which could cause a man 
of religious education, and apparently of humane and 
quiet disposition, to hesitate and argue respecting the 
moral character of such an offence as the Gunpowder 
Treason. “ Mr. Humphrey Littleton,” says he, “ told 
me, that after Mr. Cateshy saw himself and others 
in his company burnt with powder, and the rest of the 
company ready to fly from him, that then he began to 
think that he had offended God in this action, seeing 
so bad effects follow of the same. I answered him, that 
an act is not to be condemned or justified upon the 
good or bad event that followeth it, but upon the end 
or object, and the means that is used for effecting the 
same; and brought him an example out of the book of 
Judges, where the eleven tribes of Israel were com¬ 
manded by God to make war upon the tribe of 
Benjamin; and yet the tribe of Benjamin did both in 
the first and second battle overthrow the other tribes. 
‘ The like,’ said I, 4 we read of Lewis, King of France, 
who went to fight against the Turks, and to recover 
the Holy Land; but there he lost the whole of his 
army, and himself died there of the plague. The like 
we may say, when the Cyprians defended Rhodes 
against the Turks, where the Turks prevailed and the 
Cyprians were overthrown. And yet, no doubt, the 
Cyprians’ cause was good and the Turks’ was bad.’ 
And this I applied to this fact of Mr. Catesby’s. It is 
not to be approved or condemned by the event, but by 
the proper object or end, and means which was to be 


212 ABINGTON CONVICTED AND PARDONED. 

used in it. And because I know nothing of this, I 
will neither approve it nor condemn it, but leave it to 
God and their own consciences.” 

Mr. Abing- Mr. Abington, whose legal offence, like that of Hall, 

ton tried and . , 

convicted, seems to have been merely the assistance and conceal¬ 
ment of Garnet, was also tried, convicted, and sentenced 
to death, but his connexion with Lord Mounteagle is 
said to have saved his life. He afterwards received a 
pardon on condition of his restricting himself to the 
county of Worcester for the remainder of his days. 
Subsequently to this period, Mr. Abington devoted 
himself with great assiduity to the collection of mate¬ 
rials for the history of his native county. “ He sur¬ 
veyed Worcestershire,” says Anthony Wood,* “ and 
made a collection of most of its antiquities from records, 
registers, evidences both public and private, monu¬ 
mental inscriptions and arms. Part of this book I 
have seen and perused; and find that every leaf is a 
sufficient testimony of his generous and virtuous mind, 
of his indefatigable industry and infinite reading.” 
Of the numerous proceedings in the country, under 
which many other persons were put to death for an 
imputed connexion with the Gunpowder Plot, it is to 

v 

be lamented that no relation whatever exists. 

# Athene Oxon., vol. iii. p. 222, edit. Bliss. The collections of 
Mr. Abington were much used by Dr. Nash in his history of 
Worcestershire. 


TRIAL OF GARNET. 


213 


CHAPTER VII. 

Trial of Garnet—Speech of Sir E. Coke—Garnet’s defence— 
Remarks on the Trial — Unjust practice in reading written 
documents—Disadvantages under which Garnet defended himself 
—Observations on the formal charge against him. 

Garnet, Green way, and Gerard, had all been charged 
as principals in the indictment upon which the other 
conspirators had been tried and convicted; indeed, in 
that indictment, the whole Powder Treason was stated 
to have been devised by them, and executed under 
their encouragement and direction. There was at that 
time no evidence whatever of these facts except Bates’s 
statement; but the general prejudice against the Jesuits 
was sufficient to insure the finding of a true bill against 
them, and this, it was probably supposed, would be 
useful in inducing the House of Lords to pass the 
intended bill of attainder. But the facts stated in the 
former charge were inconsistent with the discoveries 
made since Garnet’s apprehension, and on that account 
it became necessary to frame a new indictment. The 
former case had been tried at Westminster; but with a 
view to make the proceedings as imposing as possible, 
and also as a compliment to the citizens, it was arranged 
that Garnet’s trial should take place in the city of 
London. A special commission was therefore issued 


214 


TRIAL OF GARNET. 


Garnet’s 

Trial. 


into London for tlie purpose, directed for the most part 
to the same Commissioners who had presided on the 
former occasion, with the addition of the Lord Mayor 
and Aldermen, in compliance with the immemorial 
privilege of the city. 

Although many accounts of the trial of Garnet have 
been published at various times, and by various parties, 
no accurate or literal contemporary report of the pro¬ 
ceedings is to be found. The “ True and Perfect 
Relation of the whole Proceedings,” which was printed 
by the King’s printer, and published by authority 
immediately after the trial, and which being translated 
into Latin, and carefully distributed throughout Europe, 
has become most generally known, is certainly not 
deserving of the character which its title imports. It 
is not true , because many occurrences on the trial are 
obviously misrepresented ; and it is not perfect , because 
the whole evidence, and many facts and circumstances 
• which must have happened are omitted, and incidents are 
inserted which could not by possibility have taken place 
on the occasion. There is a copy of the trial among 
the Harleian manuscripts, which is valuable, as contain¬ 
ing a particular reference to all the examinations given 
in evidence, and a full statement of the speech of the 
Attorney-General. There are also a few contemporary 
letters in existence, narrating the incidents of the trial; 
and in the various histories of the Jesuits many rela¬ 
tions of the proceedings are 1‘ound, which may, in some 
measure, correct and qualify the partiality of the 
authorized report. Unfortunately, these historians are 


TRIAL OF GARNET. 


215 


themselves grossly partial in the relation of a transaction 
which tended to tarnish the character of one whom 
their Church had enrolled as a martyr; in addition to 
which, their accounts, being generally compiled from 
hearsay, by foreigners unacquainted with the forms of 
English procedure, are more absurdly inaccurate, though 
perhaps less intentionally false, than that published by 
the authority of the English government. 

The trial took place on the 28th of March, 1606, 
under a special commission directed to the Lord Mayor, 
several high officers of State, Sir John Popham, Lord 
Chief Justice, Sir Thomas Fleming, Lord Chief Baron, 
and Sir Christopher Yelverton, one of the judges of the 
Court of King’s Bench. The proceedings lasted from 
eight o’clock in the morning until seven at night. 
The King was present, privately, during the whole time, 
with a vast assemblage of courtiers. Several foreign 
ambassadors also were spectators at the trial; and many 
ladies, among whom were the Lady Arabella and the 
Countess of Suffolk, were attracted to Westminster 
Hall to witness a forensic spectacle of more than 
ordinary interest and importance.* 

The indictment charged Garnet, upon the Statute 
of Treasons, with compassing the death of the King 
and heir apparent, and with a design to subvert the 
Government and the true worship of God established 
in England, to excite rebellion against the King, to 

* Winwood’s Memorials, vol. ii. p. 205. Dr. Abbott says, “ Asse- 
derunt auditores Comites et Barones quamplurimi, magnus Equitum 
Auratorum splendor, generosoram et populi melioris ingens nume- 
rus.”—Antilogia, p. 9. 


216 


SPEECH OF SIR EDWARD COKE. 


Sir Edward 

Coke’s 

Speech. 


procure foreigners to invade the realm, and to levy- 
war against the King. The overt acts of these points 
of treason were stated to be a consultation with 
Green way and Catesby on the 9 th of June, 1605, 
respecting the means of carrying them into execution ; 
and an agreement for that purpose with Catesby, 
Fawkes, Thomas Winter, and other traitors, lately 
attainted of high treason, to blow up the House of 
Parliament with gunpowder. To this indictment 
Garnet pleaded not guilty. 

Sir Edward Coke, the Attorney-General, opened the 
case with a long and laboured harangue in his peculiar 
style. He proposed to divide his matter into offences 
and circumstances precedent to, concurrent with, and 
subsequent to, the offence which was formally charged 
against Garnet by the indictment. “ And because,” 
said he, “ I am to deal to-day with the Superior of the 
Jesuits, I will only touch such treasons as have been 
plotted and wrought by the Jesuits since the superiority 
of this man in England, whereof he may truly say, 

‘ quorum pas magna fui And inasmuch as this 
prisoner is a grave and learned person, I will force my 
nature to deal mildly with him.” The Attorney- 
General then rehearsed all the treasons and con¬ 
spiracies imputed to the Roman Catholics since 
Garnet came into England as superior of the Jesuits. 
The threatened invasion by the Spanish armada, the 
treasons of Cullen, of Williams and Yorke, and of 
Squire and Walpole, were all related at length and 
pressed against Garnet as offences precedent to the 


SPEECH OF SIR EDWARD COKE. 


217 


Powder Treason. With more appearance of reason and 
justice it was urged by the Attorney-General that the 
mission of Thomas Winter to the King of Spain, which 
was contemporaneous with the reception by Garnet of 
the two papal breves excluding a Protestant successor 
to Queen Elizabeth, together with the mission of 
Christopher Wright and Fawkes to Spain soon after 
the King’s accession, which was merely a continuation 
or renewal of Thomas Winter’s previous negotiation, 
must have been known to the Superior of the Jesuits in 
England; and that this circumstance furnished a strong 
presumption of his privity to the Gunpowder Treason, 
which was devised by the same parties and directed to 
the same objects. As evidence of his concurrence in 
the Powder Plot, Sir Edward Coke insisted that Garnet 
having received from Greenway particular knowledge 
of the design, he afterwards encouraged and promoted 
it by sending letters to the Pope by Sir Edmund 
Baynham, and expressed his consent and approbation 
at the eve of its completion by especially directing his 
hearers at Coughton to pray for “ some good success 
for the Catholic cause at the beginning of Parlia¬ 
ment;” and “ prayer,” said the Attorney-General, “is 
more than consent, for nemo orat sed qui sperat et credit. 
And he in the prayer used two verses of a hymn 

“ Gentem aiiferte perfidam 
Credentium de finibus 
Ut Christo laudes debitas 
Persolvamus alacriter.” # 


* These verses are taken from one of the curious Latin hymns 


L 



218 


PROOFS FOR THE PROSECUTION. 


At the conclusion of his speech the Attorney-General 
produced his proofs, which consisted almost entirely of 
examinations taken before the commissioners previously 
to the trial. The only witnesses orally examined were 
Forset and Locherson, the two persons who had over¬ 
heard the conversations between Garnet and Hall in 
the Tower, and who were now called to verify the 
minutes they had taken. They affirmed that the 
whole matter contained in the papers signed by them 
was true ; and further declared that “ both of them 
took notes of that which they heard from Garnet and 
Hall as near as possibly they could, and that they set 
down nothing in their papers but those things wherein 
both their notes and perfect memories agreed and 
assented; and that many things that were material and 
of great moment were left out, because their notes and 
memories did not perfectly agree therein.” Garnet 
observed as to this evidence that “ he did not charge 
these gentlemen with perjury, because he knew them 

V 

to be honest men; yet he thought they had mistaken 
some things, though in the substantial parts he could 
not deny their relation.” 

Garnet defended himself with courage, intelligence, 


used in the Roman Church, many of which are as old as the fourth 
century. The hymn which begins— 

“ Cliriste, redemptor omnium,” 

formed part of the service expressly appointed for All Saints’ Day 
in the breviaries authorised by Pius Y. and Clement VIII., and in 
use at Garnet’s time, and it continues to be so at the present day. 
No inference, therefore, against Garnet could justly be drawn from 
the use of it on the 1st of November. 



GARNET’S DEFENCE. 219 

and temper. The doctrine of equivocation, which had 
been denounced by Sir Edward Coke, he explained 
according to the notions of the Roman Catholic Church, 
and justified it upon the arguments used in the 
“ Treatise of Equivocation ” found in Tresham’s desk. 
Other tenets of the Jesuits he also explained and vindi¬ 
cated. He denied all correspondence with Spain at 
the time of the armada; “and, indeed, I think,” said 
he, “ that the Spaniard was at that time so confident 
in himself that he never laboured for any help in 
England.” He also denied all participation in sub¬ 
sequent plots. He admitted that Thomas Winter’s 
negotiation with Spain for an armed invasion of Eng¬ 
land immediately before Queen Elizabeth’s death had 
been communicated to him, but declared that he refused 
to act in it, being forbidden by his superior to deal 
with any such matters. He admitted also that he was 
acquainted with Christopher Wright’s mission to Spain 
soon after James’s accession, but that he always supposed 
that he went to petition the Spanish Government for 
pensions to distressed Catholics in England, and that 
when he understood that the emissaries took upon 
themselves to move the subject of invasion, he expressed 
his dislike of it, and told those who were engaged in 
it that it would be disapproved at Rome. He called 
God and all the Saints to witness that he always 
abhorred the wicked attempt of the Powder Treason, 
that he ever thought it wholly unlawful, and did all 
he could to prevent it. “ Yet I do confess,” said he, 
“ that I did some time since understand from Mr. 

L 2 


220 


GARNET’S DEFENCE. 


Catesby that he had some great thing in hand for the 
good of Catholics. I much disliked it and dissuaded 
him; only I must needs confess I did conceal it after the 
example of Christ who commands us 4 if thy brother shall 
trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between 
thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast 
gained thy brother.’* But I allow that the laws made 
against such concealing are just and necessary, for it is 
not fit that the safety of the State should depend upon 
any man’s particular conscience.” He admitted- that 
“ he had written letters to Flanders in commendation of 
Fawkes, supposing that he went to serve as a soldier, 
and ignorant of any other purpose he had in hand.” 
He also admitted that “ when Sir Edmund Baynham 
was to go over into Flanders for a soldier, as he pre¬ 
tended, that he commended him to the Pope’s nuncio 
and other friends there, that they might send him to 
the Pope to inform him of the distressed state of the 
Catholics in England, and that Baynham might learn 
from the Pope what course he would advise to be 
taken for their relief.” He confessed further that 
“ Catesby asked him in general the question of the 
lawfulness to destroy 4 innocents ’ with ‘ nocents,’ which 
he at first considered as a mere abstract question, 
though he afterwards suspected that Catesby intended 
some practical application of it; whereupon he in¬ 
formed Catesby that he had lately received letters 

* Matt, xviii. 15. Garnet obviously misapplies this injunction, 
which refers in express terms to individual injuries and not to 
crimes. 


GARNET’S DEFENCE. 


221 


from Rome ordering him to prohibit all insurrections 
by Catholics, and told him that 6 if he proceeded 
against the Pope’s will he could not prevail; ’ that 
Catesby refused to take notice of the Pope’s pleasure 
by him, but said that ‘ he would disclose to him the 
particular project in hand, if he could obtain leave 
from his confederates to do so; ’ that soon afterwards 
Catesby came to him and told him that he had obtained 
leave to tell him the project, and then offered to dis¬ 
close it to him; but that he refused to hear it, and told 
him to inform the Pope of what was intended.” 
Garnet further admitted that ‘ ‘ he had been particularly 
acquainted with the main plot by Greenway, for Green¬ 
way had come to him in perplexity to advise with him 
upon something which he said was intended by Catesby 
and others ; and that Green way then told him “ the 
whole plot and all the particulars of it, with which he 
(Garnet) was very much distempered, and could never 
sleep quietly afterwards; that he never consented to 
it, and often prayed to God that it might not take 
effect.” 

At this point of his defence the Earl of Salisbury 
asked Garnet “ why he had not written to his superior 
Aquaviva at Rome to prevent this particular Powder 
Treason, as he had already done in smaller matters? ” 
Garnet answered that “ he might not disclose it to any 
one, because it was communicated to him in holy con¬ 
fession ; but that he had commanded Green way to 
dissuade Catesby, which, as he believed, he did.” 
Lord Salisbury here said, “You have admitted, Mr. 


222 


REPLY TO LORD SALISBURY’S OBJECTIONS. 


Garnet, that Greenway told you of the Powder Treason, 
but I ask you did not Catesby tell you of it? ” “ That, 
my Lord,” said Garnet, “ I may not answer.” “ Why, 
then,” asked Lord Salisbury, “ if you desired to prevent 
this mischief, did you refuse to hear all the particulars 
from Catesby when he offered to tell you ? ” Garnet 
only answered that “ after Green way told him what it 
was that Catesby intended, and he had called to mind 
what Catesby had previously said to him in general 
terms, his soul was so troubled with mislike of that 
particular, that he was loath to hear any more of it.” 

After the Attorney-General had replied to Garnet’s 
defence, the Earl of Northampton delivered a long 
address,* at the conclusion of which Garnet said that 
“ he had dealt plainly with the facts, that he had done 
more than he could excuse by law in having concealed 
his privity to the design; but that he had acted upon 
a conscientious persuasion that he was bound to disclose 
nothing that he had heard in sacramental confession.” 
He desired the jury to “ believe those things which he 

* In the report of these proceedings in Howell’s State Trials, a 
very long speech of the Earl of Northampton's is here inserted 
which was published by him as a separate pamphlet soon after 
Garnet’s trial. It appears from an account given in Moor’s Reports, 
p. 821, of some proceedings in the Star-Chamber in 1612, that 
certain individuals were grievously fined in that Court for having 
circulated a story that Lord Northampton had written to Cardinal 
Bellarmine, “praying him to make no answer to his book about 
Garnet s treason, because he had only written it ad placandum regem, 
et faciendum populum .” It will be remembered that the Earl of 
Northampton was a Roman Catholic ; and it is certainly a singular 
fact that Bellarmine, in his controversy with James I., does not 
allude to this speech. 


REMARKS ON THE TRIAL. 


223 


had truly declared and affirmed, and not to give credit 
unto statements of which there was no proof against 
him, nor to condemn him by mere circumstances and 
presumptions.” The jury, after deliberating about 
a quarter of an hour, returned a verdict of guilty, and 
the Lord Chief Justice passed sentence upon the 
prisoner to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. 

The observation which most readily suggests itself 
upon the perusal of the trial of Garnet, is the injustice 
of enforcing against an individual tried lor a specific 
offence, all the treasons or imputed treasons committed 
during twelve years, by members of the religious party 
to which he belonged. The charge against Garnet 
was, that he promoted the Powder Treason in the 
reign of James I. ; and, in establishing this proposition, 
the traitorous attempts of Cullen, of Williams and 
Yorke, and of Squire, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, 
with which it was not pretended that Garnet was 
immediately concerned, were detailed at great length, 
and urged upon the attention of the Jury with every 
circumstance of aggravation. And this was done not 
only in the opening accusation of the Attorney-Gene¬ 
ral, but the facts of these precedent treasons were 
successively proved in evidence by the examinations 
and confessions of the respective parties, drawn, for 
that purpose, from the archives of the Secretary of 
State. We find from the letters of contemporaries 
that it was believed from the production of these 
matters at the trial, that Garnet was guilty of all these 
antecedent treasons. The sunt of all was,” says 


Remarks on 
the Trial of 
Garnet. 


224 


NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED. 


Chamberlain, in a Letter to Sir Thomas Winwood,* 
“ that Garnet, coming into England in 1586, hath had 
his finger in every treason since that time.” The 
Earl of Salisbury indeed says, upon the trial, that the 
object was not to convict and punish Garnet, but to 
make a “ public and visible anatomy of Popish 
doctrine and practice.” Thus the particular crime of 
Garnet merely formed the text which was expanded 
into a large discourse of all the treasons of the Jesuits. 
For the same purpose, and also in order to excite a 
particular prejudice against the prisoner, the treason¬ 
able negotiations with the King of Spain, at the end 
of Elizabeth’s reign, which could not be made the 
subject of prosecution against Garnet, on account of 
his pardon, were recited and proved as circum¬ 
stantially as if they had formed part of the charge 
in the indictment. 

The evidence against Garnet, as to the Powder Plot, 
in addition to his own statements, consisted, for the 
most part, of the confessions and declarations of accused 
persons made before the Commissioners in his absence; 
and no single living witness was produced in the course 
of this voluminous proceeding, excepting the two persons 
who verified the interlocutions with Hall. It must not, 
however, be supposed that this course of proceeding 
was an instance of particular injustice in the case of 
Garnet. It was the ordinary course of procedure at 
that time in all prosecutions for offences against the 
state. Indeed, it is quite clear from contemporary 
* Win wood’s Memorials, vol. ii. p. 204. 

I 


PROOF BY WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS. 225 

writers that it was the usual practice in criminal trials, 
even by inferior tribunals, and for inferior crimes, to 
read in evidence for the prosecution the examinations 
and depositions previously taken before the justices of 
the peace.* It would be out of place here to discuss 
particularly the grounds and reasons of a practice so 
inconsistent with our notions of justice at the present 
day. But it may be stated generally that it probably 
arose from the original character of the trial by jury. 
In the rude infancy of the institution, the jury were 
witnesses, and as they were presumed to have full 
knowledge of the facts, no evidence whatever was 
produced before them. As population and civilization 
increased, the jury could not be certainly presumed 
to be acquainted with the facts, and it became 
necessary to produce evidence to inform them; 44 and 
the first evidence made use of in this way,” says 
Mr. Reeves,f 44 consisted of written papers,—such as 
depositions, informations, and examinations taken out of 
court; and this led by degrees to a sparing use of viva 
voce testimony. It was long before they thought it 
necessary to bring evidence into court in support of the 
prosecution; and it was still longer before they allowed 
the prisoner to disprove the indictment by anything 
else than the oaths of the twelve jurati.” 

But although no particular injustice was done to 
Garnet by the mere fact of reading against him the 
evidence given by absent persons., he certainly suffered 

* See Smith, De Republica Anglorum, lib. ii. cap. 23. 
f History of the English Law, vol. ii. p. 269. 

L 3 


226 


UNFAIR DEALING WITH SUCH PROOFS. 


great wrong by the mode in which the documents were 
used. Many instances occur in which admissions which 
bore heavily against him were selected and read, while 
others in which the effect of those admissions was 
qualified and restricted were wholly suppressed. 
This mode of dealing with the statements of an accused 
person is pure and unmixed injustice. It is, in truth, a 
forgery of evidence; for when a qualified statement is 
made, the suppression of the qualification is obviously 
no less a forgery than if the whole statement had been 
fabricated. The practice appears to have prevailed to 
a most unjust extent in the ore terms proceedings in 
the Star-Chamber, and may have been thence derived 
into state prosecutions in other courts. By the practice 
of that court, a party could not be prosecuted, ore 
terms , by the Attorney -General, except upon his own 
voluntary confession ; and where no confession could 
be obtained, the prosecution must proceed by the long 
process of information and answer, and the party 
accused was at liberty to produce evidence in his 
defence. “ Therein,” says Hudson, in his excellent 
Treatise on the Star-Chamber,* written in the reign 
of James I., “there is sometimes dangerous excess; 
for whereas the delinquent confessing the offence 
sub modo , the same is strained against him to his 
great disadvantage; sometime? many circumstances 
are pressed, and urged, and aggravated, which are not 
confessed by the delinquent;—which surely ought not 
to be: nothing ought to be urged but what he did 

* Collectanea Juridica, vol. ii. p. 127. 


DISADVANTAGES OF GARNET AT HIS TRIAL. 227 

freely confess in the same manner. And happy were 
it if these might be restrained within their limits, for 
that the course of proceeding is an exuberancy of 
prerogative, and therefore great reason to keep it 
within the circumference of its own orb.” 

Even in those days of the imperfect administration 
of* justice, few men came to their trial under greater 
disadvantages than Garnet. He had been examined 
twenty-three times, as he states, “ before the wisest of 
the realm,” besides sundry less formal conferences with 
the Lieutenant of the Tower, which were all recorded 
against him with ready zeal. The King’s humanity, or 
perhaps his timidity, had indeed saved him from actual 
torture; but the rack had been threatened by the 
Commissioners, and it appears from his letters that he 
was constantly in fear of it. He had literally been 
surrounded by snares; his confidential conferences 
with his friend had been insidiously overheard, and, as 
he said, misunderstood; and it is manifest that the 
listeners did not hear all, or nearly all that passed. His 
letters from the Tower had been intercepted, and were 
in the possession of his accusers, and artifices and threats, 
and false information, were alternately employed in order 
to delude or terrify him into confession. After six weeks’ 
imprisonment, with a weak and decaying body, and with 
spirits broken by perpetual alarm and anxiety, he was 
suddenly taken from the solitude of his dungeon, to 
contend for his life, alone and unassisted, against the 
most subtle advocate of the time and before a crowd of 
prejudiced and partial auditors. When these dis- 


228 


GARNET’S CONDUCT FIRM AND TEMPERATE. 


The formal 
charge 
against 
Garnet in 
the indict¬ 
ment. 


advantages are duly considered, it must be confessed 
that Garnet played his part on the trial with intrepidity 
and presence of mind. He applied himself to the 
explanation of the facts objected to him with firmness 
and moderation; answering sedately and respectfully 
to the searching questions proposed by the Com¬ 
missioners, and steadily maintaining the ground upon 
which he had rested his defence ever since the dis¬ 
coveries induced by means of his conferences with 
Hall. We search in vain, however, in his demeanour 
on the trial, as well as in his various letters and ex¬ 
aminations, for proofs of that extraordinary intelligence 
and learning which are ascribed to him by Bellarmine 
and other writers of his own communion. 

Before proceeding to the discussion of the great 
general question involved in this case, it is right to 
examine the particular charge formally made against 
Garnet, and the mode in which the evidence was 
applied to it. The general point of treason charged 
in the indictment was that, on the 9th of June, 1605, 
in the parish of St. Michael, Queenhithe, he had, with 
Catesby and Greenway, compassed and imagined the 
death of the King, Queen, and Prince Henry ; and 
the overt act laid was a consultation by him with 
Greenway and Catesby, on the same day, and at the 
same place, how to effect that treason, ending in a 
conclusion and agreement with them to effect it by 
blowing up the Parliament-House with gunpowder. 
There is some difficulty in ascertaining from the evi¬ 
dence the exact consultation to which this charge in 


REMARKS ON THE FORMAL CHARGE. 229 

the indictment was intended to apply, but the date 
and the place assigned to it seem to make it suffi¬ 
ciently clear that it was pointed to the conversation in 
which Garnet admitted that Catesby had asked his 
opinion, in general terms, respecting the lawfulness of 
a design, in executing which it would be necessary, 
“ together with many nocents, to destroy some inno¬ 
cents.” The exact time and place, at which an offence 
is stated in an indictment to have been committed, are 
not indeed technically material, and were not con¬ 
sidered to be so in the time of Lord Coke; but it has 
been always usual to state these particulars as nearly 
as possible according to the fact, and two hundred 
years ago accuracy in this respect was much more 
rigidly observed than at the present day. Now the 
only conference between Garnet, Greenway, and 
Catesby, to be traced in any of the examinations, to 
which the time and place mentioned in the indict¬ 
ment at all correspond, is that above alluded to, which 
Garnet says* took place “on the Saturday after the 
Utas (or Octave) of Corpus Christi, at his chamber in 
Thames Street, hard by Queenhithe.” The Octave of 
Corpus Christi, in 1605, was the 8th of June, cor¬ 
responding nearly to the day named in the indictment, 
and the situation of his chamber, as described by 
Garnet, was within the parish of St. Michael, and the 
ward of Queenhithe, precisely according with the 
formal description in the indictment. Under these 
circumstances, and as no allusion is made in any part 
* Garnet’s Examination, March 12th, 1605-6.—State-Paper Office. 


230 


REMARKS ON THE FORMAL CHARGE. 


of the proceedings to any other conference between 
these parties, about the same time, or at this place, 
there seems little reason to doubt that the conference 
mentioned in the indictment, as that at which Garnet 
had agreed with Greenway and Catesby to the Powder 
Plot, was the conversation at which Garnet had 
resolved Catesby’s general question. The proposition, 
therefore, which Sir Edward Coke was bound to es¬ 
tablish before the jury, as the overt act of* treason laid 
in the indictment, was that at or before this conver¬ 
sation the scheme of the Powder Plot was disclosed to 
Garnet, and that his answer to Catesby’s question was 
given with reference to that scheme. Upon this point 
there is no evidence but the admissions of Garnet 
himself; and, unfortunately, the Examinations of the 
8th and 10 th of March, which are referred to by 
several writers, as containing Garnet’s statements 
on this subject, are not now extant. It is, how¬ 
ever, abundantly clear that he did not, in those 
Examinations, state that at the time of the conversa¬ 
tion with Catesby he knew of the Powder Plot, or 
that he was then informed of it by Catesby. This 
is indeed not asserted by Sir Edward Coke, or any 
other speaker, on the trial, and the whole course of 
the proceedings appears to negative it; for if Garnet 
had admitted this fact, it would have been obviously 
not only equivalent to a confession of the indictment, 
but would have amounted in effect to an avowal of his 
full participation in the Plot. On the other hand, he 
invariably asserted both in the Examinations, which 


REMARKS ON THE FORMAL CHARGE. 231 

are still preserved, and also in his defence, and in his 
speech at the scaffold, that he first heard of the Plot 
from Greenway, about the 26th of July, 1605, and 
consequently six weeks after the day laid in the indict¬ 
ment. There was, therefore, no direct evidence to show 
that Garnet, at the time of the conversation charged in 
the indictment as an overt act of treason, was aware of 
the Powder Plot, or that Catcsby’s question was proposed 
in any other manner than in the general terms described 
by Garnet; and if the verdict of the Jury was to be 
strictly applied to the charge, there was nothing to 
warrant them in finding him guilty of that indictment. 

But this, it may be justly said, is a narrow and 
technical view of the subject. The fair question for 
discussion is whether Garnet was privy to the Plot at 
an earlier period and, morally speaking, to a more 
criminal extent than he himself chose to avow;—in 
short, whether he encouraged the conspirators, and 
contributed his efforts to carry their undertaking to a 
successful conclusion. In truth, this ought to have 
been the only subject of dispute on the trial; for if 
Garnet merely knew of the Plot, and concealed it 
without approving or encouraging it, he was guilty of 
misprision of treason only; but if he not only concealed, 
but approved it, and assisted or encouraged the per¬ 
petrators, he was guilty of high treason. It was for 
the jury to decide, upon a consideration of all the cir¬ 
cumstances of the case, and particularly of the admissions 
of the accused, which of these offences he had committed. 


232 


EXAMINATION OF GARNET AFTER TRIAL. 


Proceedings 
respecting 
Garnet after 
his Trial. 


CHAPTER VIII. 

Examination of Garnet after his Trial—His opinion on Equivoca¬ 
tion—On the obligation of Laws—His opinion on these subjects 
disinclines the King to mercy— Deceit practised upon Garnet to 
procure admissions—His letter to Anne Yaux—His letter to the 
King—His letter to the Fathers and Brethren of his Order on 
Palm Sunday—His last letter to Anne Yaux—His last examina¬ 
tion—His Execution. 

Several weeks elapsed after the condemnation of 
Garnet before it was thought proper to execute the 
sentence passed upon him. The object of this sus¬ 
pension of his fate is not precisely ascertained ; possibly, 
as the examinations were industriously continued in 
the interval, it was expected by the Government that 
some more distinct admission of his participation in the 
Plot might be obtained from him. As to a direct 
acknowledgment of his guilt, there is no doubt that 
such an expectation, if entertained, was entirely dis¬ 
appointed ; the Jesuit was consistent to the last in his 
statements respecting himself, and the share he had 
taken in the transaction. But the correspondence and 
conduct of Garnet, as well as his formal declarations 
subsequently to his trial, and the opinions which he 
therein avows, are most material for the solution of the 
great historical problem respecting the nature and 


HIS OPINION ON EQUIVOCATION. 


233 


extent of his connexion with the designs and counsels 
of the conspirators. It will be necessary, therefore, to 
enter somewhat in detail into the relation of the 
occurrences of that period. 

The examinations of Garnet subsequently to the trial 
were frequently directed to matters of jesuitical faith 
and doctrine, and in particular to his own sentiments 
respecting the obligation of human laws and equivoca¬ 
tion. On these subjects he avowed opinions, which, 
although they were commonly maintained by the more 
rigorous Jesuits of that day, as inconsistent with all 
good government as they were contrary to sound 
morality. The Privy Council, both before and after 
his trial, required him from time to time to commit 
to writing, not only statements respecting his conduct, 
but also his opinions on various points of morality and 
religion. Many of these papers are still preserved at 
the State-Paper Office, and many more are mentioned, 
and partly abstracted, in the course of the controversy 
which took place a few years after his death. 

Being, on one occasion before his trial, desired to Garnet’s 

i , , • . . ,. . . i n opinion on 

declare his opinion respecting equivocation, he thus Equivoca- 
expresses himself in a paper, dated the 20th of March, 

1605-6 : “ Concerning equivocation, this is my opinion : 

“ in moral affairs, and in the common intercourse of 
life, when the truth is asked amongst friends, it is 
not lawful to use equivocation, for that would cause 
“ great mischief in society—wherefore in such cases 
“ there is no place for equivocation. But in cases 
“ where it becomes necessary to an individual for his 


cc 


<< 


234 


ON THE OBLIGATION OF LAWS. 


“ defence, or for avoiding any injustice or loss, or for 
“ obtaining any important advantage, without danger 
“or mischief to any other person, there equivocation 
“ is lawful.” As an illustration of this doctrine, he 
then cites an instance of what he considers lawful 
equivocation, taken from the “ Treatise of Equivoca¬ 
tion.” “ Let us suppose,” says he, “ that I have 
“ lately left London, where the plague is raging : and, 
“ on arriving at Coventry, I am asked before I can be 
“ admitted into the town, whether I come from London, 
“and am perhaps required to swear that I do not: 
“ it would be lawful for me (being assured that I bring 
“ no infection) to swear in such a case that I did not 
“come from London; for I put the case that it would 
“ be very important for me to go into Coventry, and that 
“from my admittance no loss or damage could arise 
“ to the inhabitants. There is no motive for the ques- 
“ tion, except a desire to avoid the introduction of the 
“ plague into Coventry ; and if the inhabitants knew 
“ for certain (as I know myself) that I am not infected 
“ with the plague, they would at once admit me into 
“ their city.”* 

In an Examination! taken after his trial, he goes a 
step farther and avows, “ that in all cases where simple 
“ equivocation was allowable it was lawful if necessary 
“ to confirm it by an oath. This,” says he, “ I 
“acknowledge to be, according to my opinion, and 

* This statement is taken from Casaubon’s Letter to Fronto 
Ducseus. See “ Treatise of Equivocation,” p. 80, in which Garnet’s 
illustration of the doctrine is given. 

f Garnet’s Examination, April 28th, 1G0G.—State-Paper Office. 


ON THE OBLIGATION OF LAWS. 235 

“ the opinion of the schoolmen; and our reason is, for 
“ that in cases of lawful equivocation, the speech by 
“ equivocation being saved from a lie, the same speech 
“ may be without perjury confirmed by oath, or by 
“ any other usual way, though it were by receiving 
“ the sacrament, if just necessity so require.” 

In a Declaration,* in his own hand-writing, he 
thus reasons respecting the obligation of laws: 44 One 
“ necessary condition required in every law is that 
“ it be just; for, if this condition be wanting, that 
“ the law be unjust, then is it, ipso facto , void 
(i and of no force, neither hath it any power to oblige 
“ any. And this is a maxim not only of divines, but 
44 of Aristotle and all philosophers. Hereupon ensuetli 
“ that no power on earth can forbid or punish any 
“ action, which we are bound unto by the law of God, 
44 which is the true pattern of all justice; so that the 
44 laws against recusants, against receiving of priests, 
44 against mass, and other rites of Catholic religion, 
“ are to be esteemed as no laws by such as stedfastly 
“ believe these to be necessary observances of the true 
44 religion. Likewise Almighty God hath absolute 
“ right for to send his preachers of his gospel to any 
44 place in the world; 4 Euntes docete omne gentes 
4 4 So that the law against priests coming into the realm 
44 sincerely to preach is no law; and those that are put 
44 to death by virtue of that decree are verily martyrs, 
44 because they die for the preaching of true religion. 
44 Being asked what I meant by 4 true treason,’ I 
# Garnet’s Declaration, April 1st, 1G06. 


236 


ON THE OBLIGATION OF LAWS. 


“ answer, that is a true treason which is made treason 
“ by any just law; and that is no treason at all which 
is made treason by an unjust law.” In the same 
paper he declares, respecting equivocation, that “ All 
“ the doctors that hold equivocation to be lawful, do 
“ maintain that it is not lawful, when the exanimate is 
“ bound to tell the simple truth,—that is, according to 
“ the civil law, when there is a competent judge, and 
“ the cause subject to his jurisdiction, and sufficient 
“proofs. But in case of treason a man is bound to 
c * confess of another, without any witness at all,—yea, 
“ voluntarily to disclose it,—not so of himself. And 
“ how far the common law bindeth in cases that are not 
“ treason a man to confess of himself, I know not. In 
“ the civil law it is sufficient to have semiplenam 
“ probationem, that is, unum testern omni exceptione 
“ majorem, or manifesta indicia. Our law I take 
“ to be more mild, and that a man may put all to 
“ witnesses, without confessing, except in cases of 
“treason. For according to our law non pervertitur 
“ judicium tacendo vel negando, as in the civil law 
“ where is required reus confitens. But generally, 
“ where a man is bound to confess, there is no place 
“ of equivocation. And when he is not bound to con- 
“ fess according to the laws of each country, then he 
“ may equivocate.” 

In making these avowals. Garnet seems to have for¬ 
gotten his own position, and to have overlooked the 
object of those who were extracting them from him. 
The King and his advisers naturally applied these pro- 


HE PRACTICALLY APPLIED THESE OPINIONS. 237 

positions to liis own' exculpatory statements, as show¬ 
ing how little reliance could be placed upon the most 
solemn asseverations of a man whose opinions approved, 
and whose practice sanctioned, the violation of truth in 
all cases where, in his own fallible judgment, he was 
not morally or legally bound to accuse himself. It was 
perfectly clear, too, that these sentiments were not 
entertained by Garnet merely as abstract and specula¬ 
tive doctrines, but that he had practically applied 
them in the whole course of his conduct during the 
examination. He had denied all knowledge of the 
Plot until betrayed by the conferences with Hall; 
and he denied those conferences until he plainly 
perceived that he only injured himself by so doing; 
and when afterwards abashed and confounded at the 
clear discovery of his falsehood, he admitted to 
the Lords that “ he had sinned unless equivocation 
could save him.” From the beginning to the end of 
the inquiry, he had acted in strict consistency with the 
principles he now acknowledged, never confessing any 
fact until it was proved against him, and never hesi¬ 
tating to declare palpable falsehoods respecting matters 
which tended to inculpate himself, and to affirm them 
by the most solemn oaths and protestations. 

The King was inclined to lenient measures. He 
had expressly forbidden the torture in Garnet’s case, 
and had ordered him to be treated with mildness and 
forbearance. He asserts of his own disposition that he 
was “ naturally averse from blood.” Garnet’s intimacy 
with some of the foreign ambassadors, and the interest 


238 


GARNET’S OPINIONS DETERMINE HIS FATE. 


felt for him by several courts of Europe, may have 
alarmed his timidity; in addition to which, it has been 
suggested as not improbable that the doubtful nature of 
the evidence adduced on the trial, and the apparent 
candour of Garnet’s defence, may have produced so 
favourable an impression on his mind as to induce him 
to hesitate respecting the execution of his sentence. 
But as his defence depended entirely upon his own 
assertions, Garnet’s declaration of his principles must 
have tended to weaken that impression, by inducing 
reasonable doubts of his sincerity ; and in this manner 
may possibly have determined his fate.* 

As a means of arriving at the truth respecting 

* The papers above cited were generally written with his own 
hand, and always signed by himself; and it is therefore fair to make 
him responsible for them. Less credit is, however, to be given to 
loose reports of expressions in conversation officiously forwarded by 
the Lieutenant of the Tower. No doubt any sentiment uttered by 
Garnet at this time, which was likely to influence the mind of the 
King against him, was zealously recorded and reported to the 
council; and the memorandum annexed to the following paper, by 
Sir William Waad, sufficiently denotes the object for which it was 
intended : — 

“ 1 Aprilis, 1606. 

“ Garnet doth affirm, that if any man hath or should undertake to 
kill His Majesty (whom God preserve!), that he is not bound to 
confess it, though he be brought and examined before a lawful 
magistrate, unless there is proof to convince him. 

“ Exam, per W. G. Waad, 

William Lane, 

J. Locherson.” 

“Memorandum. —These words in the parentheses (whom God 
preserve!) were not spoken by Garnet, but added by us as fit in 
duty to be marked in so heinous a case : and I never heard him 
wish good wish to His Majesty since he came to the Tower.”—State- 
Paper Office. 


DECEIT PRACTISED UPON HIM. 


239 


Garnet subsequently to his trial, attempts were made 
to circumvent him by giving him false information, 
which would necessarily excite great uneasiness in his 
mind, and induce him to attempt explanations of his 
conduct to his friends abroad. Opportunities for such 
communication were then insidiously thrown in his 
way, and the communications themselves were inter¬ 
cepted and brought to the Council. With a view to 
this scheme, he was told by the clergymen, who visited 
him in the Tower for this purpose, and by the Lieu¬ 
tenant, that great scandal had been occasioned amongst 
Catholics by the facts he had admitted upon his trial, 
insomuch that multitudes in consequence of his conduct 
in breaking the seal of confession, accusing Greenway, 
and acknowledging the Pope’s breves, had forsaken the 
Roman Catholic church in disgust. They informed him 
also that Greenway had been taken, and was in the 
Tower. This information filled Garnet’s mind with 
dismay. That Catholics should disapprove his conduct 
troubled him deeply; and he dreaded that further 
scandal would arise from the disclosures which Greenway 
might make. His whole defence had rested upon the 
assurance of Greenway’s escape; and if that Jesuit 
were now taken and examined, he might give a totally 
different account of the transaction, and betray all. 
Under these apprehensions, he writes, on the 3rd of 
April, a letter to Anne Vaux, which was intercepted, 
and is still in existence. The first part of the letter* 


# This letter and the subsequent Declaration are taken from the 
autographs in the State-Paper Office. 


240 


GARNET’S LETTER TO ANNE VAUX. 


consists entirely of advice to hersfclf respecting the best 
mode of disposing of herself after his death. He then 
proceeds as follows :— 

“ I understand by the doctors which were with me, 
“ and by Mr. Lieutenant, that great scandal was taken 
“ at my arraignment, and live hundred Catholics 
“ turned Protestants; which, if it should be true, 1 
“ must think that many other Catholics are scanda- 
“ lized at me also. I desire all to judge of me in 
“ charity; lor, I thank God most humbly, in all my 
“ speeches and actions I have had a desire to do 
“ nothing against the glory of God; and so I will 
“ touch as near as I remember every point. I found 
“ myself so touched by all that have gone before, but 
“ especially by the testimony of two that did hear our 
“ confessions and conferences, and misunderstand us, 
“ that I thought it would make our actions much 
‘ £ more excusable to tell the truth than to stand to the 
“ torture or trial by witnesses. I acknowledged that 
“ Mr. Green well* only told me in confession; yet so 
“ that I might reveal it if after I should be brought in 
“ question for it. I also said that I thought he had it 
“ in confession, so that he could reveal it to none but 
“ to me; and so neither of us was bound or could 
“ reveal it. I thought Mr. Green well was beyond sea, 
“ and that he could have no harm; but if he be here, 
<£ in their fingers, I hope his charity is such that he 
“ would be content to bear part with me. He was so 


* Garnet usually gives Father Greenway this name. 


GARNET’S LETTER TO ANNE YAUX. 241 

“ touched that my acknowledgments did rather excuse 
“ him; for I said, as it was true, that we both conspired 
“ to hinder it. And so I hope he did. For Bates’s 
“ accusation is of no credit, he revealing confession if 
“ it were true. For matters of the Pope’s authority, of 
“ sigillum confessionis , of equivocation, I spoke as 
“ moderately as I could, and as I thought I was bound ; 
“ il any were scandalized thereat, it was not my fault 
“ but their own. The breves I thought necessary to 
“ acknowledge for many causes, especially Mr. Catesby 
44 having grounded himself thereon, and not on 
44 my advice. I remember nothing else that could 
44 scandalize. But I was in medio illusorum , and it 
44 may be Catholics may also think strange that we 
44 should be acquainted with such things, but who 
44 can hinder but he must know things sometimes 
44 which he would not? I never allowed it; I sought 

to hinder it more than men can imagine, as the 
44 Pope will tell; it was not my part, as I thought, 
44 to disclose it. 

44 I have written a detestation of that action for the 
44 King to see; and I acknowledge myself not to die a 
44 victorious martyr, but a penitent thief, as I hope I 
44 shall do; and so will I say at the execution, whatso- 
44 ever others have said or held before. Let everybody 
44 consider, if they had been twenty-three times exa- 
44 mined before the wisest of the realm, besides parti- 
44 cular conferences with Mr. Lieutenant, what he 
44 could have done under so many evidences. For the 
44 conspirators thought themselves sure, and used my 

M 


242 


GARNET’S DECLARATION FOR THE KING. 


“ name freely; though I protest none of 4 them ever 
“ told me of anything, yet have I hurt nobody.” 

On the following day he sent to the Council the 
declaration alluded to in the above letter as written for 
the King to see. It is as follows :— 

4° April. 

“ I, Henry Garnet, of the Society of Jesus, Priest, 

“ do here freely protest before God, that I hold the » 
“ late intention of the Powder action to have been 
“ altogether unlawful and most horrible, as well in 
“ respect of the injury and treason to his Majesty, the 
“ Prince, and others that should have been sinfully 
“ murdered at that time, as also in respect of infinite 
“ other innocents, which should have been present. I 
“ also protest that I was ever of opinion that it was 
“ unlawful to attempt any violence against the King’s 
“ majesty and the estate after he was once received by 
“ the realm. Also I acknowledge that I was bound to 
“ reveal all knowledge that I had of this or any other 
“ treason out of the sacrament of confession. And 
“ whereas, partly upon hope of prevention, partly for 
“ that I would not betray my friend, I did not reveal 
“ the general knowledge of Mr. Catesby’s intention 
“ which I had by him, I do acknowledge myself 
“ highly guilty, to have offended God, the King’s 
“ majesty and estate; and humbly ask of all forgive- 
“ ness; exhorting all Catholics whatsoever, that they 
“ no way build upon my example, but by prayer and 
“ otherwise seek the peace of the realm, hoping in his 


REMARKS ON HIS LETTER. 


243 


“ Majesty’s merciful disposition, that they shall enjoy 
“ their wonted quietness, and not bear the burden of 
“ mine or others’ defaults or crimes. In testimony 
“ whereof I have written this with my own hand. 

“ Henry Garnet.” 

Both the above papers are still in existence at the 
State-Paper Office in Garnet’s hand-writing; and no 
doubt can exist either as to their genuineness or their 
contents. They contain nothing positively inconsistent 
with Garnet’s statement on the trial. Taken by them¬ 
selves, indeed, they rather strengthen his defence; but 
it will be observed that he is careful to define exactly 
the extent of the admissions which he had made in his 
examinations, which might be for the information and 
guidance of Green way, whom he supposed to be in 
custody, and thus to prevent contradiction in their 
statements. Moreover, the whole scope and object of 
the letter to Anne Yaux is to justify himself, not from 
the imputation of being in fact an accessory to the 
Plot, but from the accusation of weakness or treachery 
in having acknowledged so much as he had done, by 
showing that he had admitted no more, either against 
himself or Greenway, than had been previously proved 
beyond the possibility of contradiction. 

On the 4th of April he also wrote a letter to Green¬ 
way, which, like the other papers written by him at 
this time, was intercepted. This letter is lost, and no 
copy of it lias been discovered to be in existence. 
It is however repeatedly cited and fully abstracted 

m 2 


244 


HIS LETTER TO GREENWAY. 


by Abbott, and is mentioned by Casaubon, both of 
whom certainly had it before them. From the extracts 
given from this paper by contemporary writers, it 
appears to have contained little more than an echo of 
the above letter to Anne Vaux. “ I wrote yesterday,” 
he says to Green way, “ a letter to the King, in which 
I avowed, as I do now, that I always condemned that 
intention of the Powder Plot; and I admitted that 1 
might have revealed the general knowledge I had of it 
from Catesby out of confession, and should have done 
so if I had not relied upon the Pope’s interference to 
prevent their design, and had not been unwilling to 
betray my friend; and in this I confessed that I had 
sinned both against God and the King, and prayed for 
pardon from both.”* 

Garnet, when afterwards examined respecting this 
letter to Greenway before the Commissioners, at first 
affirmed, “ upon his priesthood, that he did never write 
any letter or letters, nor send any message to Greenway 
since he was at Coughton; and this he protested to be 
spoken without equivocation. ”f A few days after¬ 
wards, on being shown his letter to Greenway, and 
asked how he could justify this falsehood, he boldly 
replied, “ that he had done nothing but that he might 
lawfully do, and that it was evil done of the Lords to ask 
that question of him, and to urge him upon his priest¬ 
hood when they had his letters which he had written, 
for he never would have denied them if he had seen 

# Abbott’s Antilogia, p. 147. 

f Garnet’s Examination, April 25 th, 1606—State-Paper Office. 


LAWFULNESS OF DENYING A TRUE CHARGE. 245 

them; but supposing the Lords had not his letters, he 
did deny in such sort as he did the writing of any 
letter, which he might lawfully do.”* 

The doctrine that it is lawful to deny facts tending 
to the establishment of a criminal charge, until the 
offender is satisfied that they can be proved, adopted 
and justified by Garnet in the course of these pro¬ 
ceedings, was by no means peculiar to him, but was 
commonly maintained by theologians of his persuasion. 
Soto, a learned Jesuit, in his treatise De Ratione te- 
gendi et detegendi secretum , thus states the argument in 
its vindication : “ It is unlawful for any man to kill 
himself; consequently, no man can be justified in doing 
anything to promote his own destruction. But he who 
confesses a crime to a magistrate, without which con¬ 
fession he could not be condemned to death, acts 
against his own life. Therefore in such a case no man 
is bound to confess the truth.” Nor was Garnet singu¬ 
lar in his practical application of the doctrine. Mr. 
Abington, who was imprisoned and examined respect¬ 
ing his knowledge of the Plot, and especially respecting 
his harbouring Garnet in his house at Hendlip, thus 
describes his own examination before the Council 
“ My Lord Chief Justice fell in the end to two points : 
the one, if Mr. Tesmond ever moved me to join with 
Sir Everard Digby, Mr. Catesby, and Mr. Winter, and 
others, in open rebellion against the King; but that 
they could not prove. The other was, if I knew of 
Mr. Garnet’s being in my house? I, confident that 
* Garnet’s Examination, April 28th, 1606.—State-Paper Office. 


246 


HE IS AGAIN EXAMINED. 


they would not confess anything against me, denied 
them both.” So that Mr. Abington does not deny 
that both of these imputed facts were true, but says 
that neither of them could be proved against them, and 
therefore he denies them. He had good reason for his 
confidence in Garnet and Hall’s silence respecting him, 
for he afterwards says “ that it was mutually resolved 
by Garnet, Hall, and himself, that if those two were 
ever taken in his house they should absolutely renounce 
all knowledge and acquaintance one with'another.”* 

On the same day on which his letter to Greenway 
was sent, Garnet was again examined.! Previously to 
the examination he had been falsely informed, as above 
stated, that Greenway had been taken, and had de¬ 
clared that he had communicated the matter to Garnet 
out of confession. He was then seriously charged to 
“ affirm sincerely whether he had really received the 
matter at first from Green way in confession ?” He 
answered, “ Greenway and I were walking to and fro, 
when he told me the whole matter under what I 
understood to be the greater seal of confession, though 
he perhaps may have intended the lesser seal.” Two 
days after this examination, Garnet wrote another 
letter to the King, dated April 6, in which he says 
“ that he cannot for certain affirm that Greenway’s 
intention was to communicate the matter to him in 
confession, and it might be that this was not his 

* Dr. Williams’s Vindication of liis History of the Powder 
Treason ; citing Mr. Abington’s Autograph. 

f Tortura Torti, p. 285, citing Autogr. April 4. 


LETTER TO THE FATHERS AND BRETHREN. 


247 


intention, but that he always supposed that his inten¬ 
tion was as he had before related.” He added that 
“ perhaps Greenway did not understand so well as he 
did what was the extent of the bond of confession ; but 
that, at all events, he always understood the communi¬ 
cation to be made with reference to confession, but so 
that he might reveal it to his Superior, if questioned.”* 
But a much more important paper than either of 
these was a letter addressed by Garnet, 4 Dilectissimis 
Patribus et Fratribus meis ,’ 4 To His beloved Fathers 
and Brethren,’ and dated on Palm-Sunday (April 13). 
This paper is also unfortunately lost; but copious 
extracts from it are contained in Abbott’s Antilogia. 
From these extracts, and also from the quotations 
given in Casaubon’s Letter to Fronto Ducseus,t and 
in Bishop Andrews’s Tortura Torti, it appears that it 
was written by Garnet with the same view as the 
letters to Mrs. Vaux and Greenway—namely, to re¬ 
move from the minds of the English Roman Catholics 
an unfavourable impression which he was told had 
arisen against him in consequence of his having ac¬ 
cused Greenway, and confessed his own knowledge 
of the Plot. 44 1 acknowledged my own privity,” says 
he, “ because all who had gone before me had accused 
me, Catesby having used my name freely in order to 
persuade others, and I was therefore thought much 
more guilty than I really was; so that my confession 

* Abbott’s Antilogia, p. 140, citing Garneti Autogr. ad Rejem, 
April 6. 

f Page 99. 


Garnet’s 
Letter to the 
Fathers and 
Brethren of 
the Society 
of Jesus. 


248 LETTER TO THE FATHERS AND BRETHREN. 

did much rather excuse me and my friends than other¬ 
wise ; and also most chiefly because, while Hall and I 
had divers conferences at our two doors in the Tower, 
two witnesses placed at a third door did overhear us. 
Moreover, certain letters of mine to Mrs. Anne (Vaux), 
written with orange-juice, were intercepted by some 
perfidy, and thus occasion had been taken against me, 
though without reason. Wherefore I was perforce 
compelled to confess my knowledge; nor would it have 
been prudent against the clearest proof to have suffered 
torture, which I thank God I could have borne for a 
better cause. I was also compelled to name Greenway, 
which I should never have done if I had not heard for 
certain from a friend that he was safe beyond sea. If 
I had not thought so I must have devised some other 
formal story. But as the matter stood, this was abso¬ 
lutely necessary :—in the first place, because I could 
not say that I had my knowledge from any of the 
conspirators, as this would have been contrary to my 
most sacred protestations made in writing to all Catho¬ 
lics, and verbally to the Council; and secondly, be¬ 
cause I saw Greenway no less charged than myself 
with divers confessions of other persons, and the Com¬ 
missioners even wished that they had him to deal with 
instead of me.” 

By Eudsemon-Joannes, and also by modern Roman 
Catholic writers, this letter has been pronounced to be 
a forgery ;* but this assertion must be considered as a 

* In the earlier editions of his History, Dr. Lingard unhesitatingly 
adopts this opinion, and declares the letter to be “ wholly unworthy of 


LETTER TO THE FATHERS AND BRETHREN. 


249 


mere gratia dictum , urged in order to remove a pressing 
difficulty, and wholly unsupported by evidence or 
sound argument. And although the paper, when 
combined with other circumstances, furnishes a strong 
argument against Garnet’s innocence, it is not in itself 
so conclusive and convincing a proof of his guilt 
as a forger would probably have fabricated. From the 
loss of the original document, it is no doubt open to 
the imputation of being merely a fragment, and of 
having been unfairly or inaccurately abstracted; but 
with respect to this objection, a comparison of Dr. 
Abbott’s extracts from other documents of a similar 
kind with the originals will show that they at least are 
fairly extracted and faithfully translated, and there 
seems no reason why a different mode of proceeding 
should have been adopted with this particular paper. 
Besides, the letter of April 3rd to Anne Vaux, which 
contains nearly the same admissions, is still extant. 

A few days before Garnet’s execution, several di¬ 
vines of the English Protestant Church visited him in 
the Tower, for the alleged purpose of giving him such 
spiritual assistance as his situation required, but really 
perhaps by the direction of the King, in order to draw 
from him further information respecting the faith and 
doctrine of the Jesuits. Among other persons present 


credit.” In his fourth edition, however, he appears to have altered 
his former views, and to admit the genuineness of the letter, although 
he insinuates that the effect and meaning of the original may have 
been materially varied in the translations of it given by contemporary 
writers. See Lingard’s History, vol. ix. note D. 

M 3 



250 


GARNET’S CONFERENCE WITH DIVINES. 


on this occasion were Dr. James Montague, the 
Dean of the Chapel Royal; Dr. Neile, one of the 
King’s Chaplains and Dean of Westminster; and Dr. 
John Overall, Dean of St. Paul’s, all of them clergy¬ 
men of distinguished learning and piety.* After con¬ 
versing at length with him upon several points of 
doctrine, one of the visitors asked him, “ Whether he 
conceived that the Church of Rome, after his death, 
would declare him a martyr; and whether, as a matter 
of opinion and doctrine, he thought the Church would 
be right in doing so, and that he should in that case 

# Dr. Montague was made Dean of the Chapel Royal immediately 
upon James’s accession, and was afterwards successively Bishop of 
Bath and Wells and of Winchester. “ Dr. Richard Neile,” says 
Anthony Wood (Fasti. Oxon. i. p. 287), “was one who passed through 
all degrees and orders in the Church of England, and was thereby 
made acquainted with the inconveniences and distresses incident to 
all conditions. He served the church as schoolmaster, curate, vicar, 
parson, master of the Savoy, Dean of Westminster in the place of 
Lamicelot Andrews, promoted to the see of Chichester (in which 
dignity he was installed November 5th, 1605), Clerk to the Closet to 
both kings James I. and Charles I. successively, Bishop of Rochester 
1608 (with which he kept his deanery in commendam ), Lichfield and 
Coventry two years after, Lincoln 1613, Durham 1617, Winchester 
1628, and lastly, in 1631, Archbishop of York, in which honour he 
died October 31st, 1610, and was buried in St. Peter’s church in 
Westminster. He was born of honest parents in King Street, in the 
city of Westminster, his father being a tallow-chandler.” Dr. John 
Overall was created Dean of St. Paul’s soon after James’s accession ; 
and about the same time was appointed Regius Professor of Divinity 
in the University of Cambridge: he was afterwards Bishop of 
Lichfield and Coventry, from which see he was translated to Norwich- 
He died in 1619. Dr. Overall was a learned and enlightened theo¬ 
logian, an excellent scholar, and singularly liberal for the times in 
which he lived. He was the intimate friend of Grotius, among 
whose correspondence many letters from Overall are found. He 
took a leading part in the translation of the Bible at the commence¬ 
ment of James's reign. 


HE DENIES ALL TITLE TO MARTYRDOM. 


251 


really beeome a true martyr?” Upon this Garnet 
exclaimed, with a deep sigh, “la martyr? Oh what 
a martyr should I be! God forbid ! If, indeed, I 
were really about to suffer death for the sake of the 
Catholic religion, and if [ had never known of this 
project except by the means of sacramental confession, 
I might perhaps be accounted worthy of the honour of 
martyrdom, and might deservedly be glorified in the 
opinion of the Church; as it is, I acknowledge myself 
to have sinned in this respect, and deny not the justice 
of the sentence passed upon me.” “ Would to God,” 
lie added, “ that I could recall that which has been 
done! Would to God that anything had happened 
rather than that this stain of treason should attach to 
my name ! I know that my offence is most grievous, 
though I have confidence in Christ to pardon me on 
my hearty penitence; but I would give the whole 
world, if I possessed it, to be able to die without the 
weight of this sin upon my soul.”* 

The confusion and distress of Garnet’s mind at this 

# This anecdote is related in the Letter to Fronto Ducseus, p. 163, 
by Casaubon, who says that Dr. Overall, the Dean of St. Paul’s, first 
related it to him, and that on his mentioning it to the Bishop of 
Bath and Wells and the Bishop of Lichfield, they fully confirmed it. 
It is also related by Dr. Abbott, in his Antilogia, p. 148. That a 
conversation of the kind occurred is clear from Garnet’s Letter to 
the Fathers and Brethren, on Palm-Sunday, above cited, in which he 
says, “ Three deans have been with me, who gave me good counsel 
about contrition, confession, and satisfaction. I told them I should 
not be found wanting as to any of those matters; but that I could 
not converse with them about them, because it was unlawful for me 
to do so. They asked me whether I thought that I should die a 
martyr ? I answered, No, but a penitent thief, which I had before 
said to Mr. Attorney.” 


252 


HIS LAST LETTER TO ANNE VAUX. 


time, under the pressure of various kinds which had 
been applied to it, appears from the following confused 
communication* to Anne Vaux, which is supposed to 
have been the last letter written by him to her :— 

“It pleaseth God daily to multiply my crosses. I 
“ beseech him give me patience and perseverance 
“ usque in finem. I was, after a week’s hiding, taken 
“ in a friend’s house, where our confessions and secret 
“ conferences were heard, and my letters taken by 
“ some indiscretion abroad ;—then the taking of your- 
“ self;—after, my arraignment;—then the taking of 
“ Mr. Greenwell;—then the slander of u£ both abroad ; 
“ —then the ransacking anew of Erith and the other 
“ house ;—then the execution of Mr. Hall;—and now, 
“ last of all, the apprehension of Richard and Robert; 
“ with a cipher, I know not of whose, laid to my 
“ charge, and that which was a singular oversight, a 
“ letter in cipher, together with the ciphers; which 
“ letter may bring many into question. 

“ Suffer etiam Jios; audistis et jinem Domini vi- 
“ distis; quemadmodum misericors Dominus est et 
“ miserator. Sit nomen Domini benedictum. 

“ Your’s, in ceternum , as I hope, 

“ H. G. 

“ 21° Apr. 

“ I thought verily my chamber in Thames Street 
“ had been given over, and therefore I used it to 
“ save Erith; but I might have done otherwise.” 

The last formal examination of Garnet before the 

* State-Paper Office. 


HIS LAST EXAMINATION. 


253 


Commissioners took place on the 25th of April, about 
a week before his execution. On this occasion “ being 
demanded upon his priesthood to affirm sincerely, 
notwithstanding any thing heretofore said, whether he 
took Greenway’s discovery to be in confession or no? 
He answered, that it was not in confession, but by way 
of confession; which may be done in conference of 
great points, or need of study, or want of time though 
it be a good while after.” “ Being asked, how often 
they conferred of this ? He said, so often as they met 
he would .ask, being careful of the matter; but new 
question he did ask him none.” “ Being asked, upon 
his priesthood, whether he did burn the Pope’s breves 
or no? He answered, that according to his remem¬ 
brance they were assuredly burned with his own hands, 
either at Erith or Conghton.” “ Being asked, whether 
he had not conference with Greenway about some man 
to be reserved to be Protector ? He answered, that in 
general he did ask such a question; who answered, 
that that was to be referred until the blow was passed, 
and then the Protector to be chosen out of the noble¬ 
men that should be saved.” * 

At length, when the scruples of the King were 
overcome, or when the Lords of the Council were 
satisfied that no further discoveries of importance could 
be obtained from Garnet, the warrant for his execution 
was signed. The 1st of May had been originally 
appointed for the day of his execution. “ It was 
looked yesterday,” says Sir Dudley Carleton, in a 
* Garnet’s Examination, April 25th, 1606. State-Paper Office. 


Garnet’s 

execution 

determined 

on. 


254 


HIS EXECUTION DETERMINED ON. 


letter* to Chamberlaine, dated the 2nd May, 1606, 
“ that Garnet should have come a-maying to the 
gallows, which was set up for him in Paul’s Church¬ 
yard on Wednesday; but upon better advice his 
execution is put off till to-morrow, for fear of disorder 
among prentices and others in a day of such misrule. 
The news of his death was sent to him upon Monday 
by Dr. Abbott, f which he could hardly be persuaded 
to believe, having conceived great hope of grace by 
some good words and promises he said were made 
him, and by the Spanish ambassador’s mediation, 
who he thought would have spoken to the King for 
him. He hath been since often visited and examined 
by the Attorney, who finds him shifting and faltering 
in all his answers; and it is looked he will equivocate 
at the gallows; but he will be hanged without equivo¬ 
cation, though yet some think he should have favour 
upon a petitionary letter he hath sent to the King.” 

Carleton’s information, or his prophecy was accurate, 
for on the following day Garnet was brought to the 
scaffold and executed, in pursuance of his sentence. 

In cases of doubtful evidence, a true account of the 
conduct and language of a criminal in his last moments 
is always interesting, and often affords indications "of 
facts bearing upon the question of his guilt or inno¬ 
cence. It is true, that the statements made at such a 

* State-Paper Office. 

f It is uncertain whether this was Dr. George Abbott, afterwards 
Archbishop of Canterbury, or Dr. Robert Abbott, his brother, the 
author of the ‘ Antilogia,’ who was at this time one of the King’s 
chaplains, and afterwards Bishop of Salisbury. 


VERACITY OF DYING DECLARATIONS. 


255 


time are to be received with much caution. The im¬ 
mediate prospect of death does not necessarily impel 
the sufferer to speak the truth, though it removes the 
most common motives to falsehood; and there are 
many well-authenticated instances of persons, who, 
influenced still by the passions, hopes, and fears of 
their previous lives, have uttered manifest untruths 
upon the scaffold, and (to use a vulgar phrase) have 
quitted the world with a lie in their mouths. The 
more common case is, however, for offenders to admit 
their guilt in effect, and to attempt in their last 
moments to give a favourable colouring to the part 
they have taken in the particular transaction for which 
they are to suffer, the main features of which they do 
not attempt to deny. With this object they either 
describe their companions to have been more actively 
criminal than themselves, or they impute misconduct 
to their accusers, or they mitigate and justify the 
motives ascribed to themselves, and thus attempt to 
cover the naked wickedness of their own actions. 
This flimsy veil is, however, easily seen through ; and 
it is by no means uncommon to discover, among the 
petty artifices used on these occasions, with the view 
of improving the complexion of criminal acts, the 
most convincing proofs of the guilt of the offender. 
At all events, it is most satisfactory, where any doubt 
exists respecting facts, to possess a faithful narrative 
of the conduct of a criminal after his condemnation; if 
the evidence of his behaviour and conversation, before 
conviction, has a material bearing upon the question of 


256 


DYING DECLARATIONS. 


his guilt or innocence, it must be much more important 
when most of the motives to falsehood have vanished 
with the hope of life, and when the immediate ap¬ 
proach of death, and the apprehension of its unknown 
consequences, may well induce a frame of mind favour¬ 
able to the confession of truth. 

Unfortunately, in ancient times, this advantage was 
seldom to be attained; there was usually a political 
end, wholly independent of the legitimate objects of 
criminal punishment, to be obtained by an execution 
for a state offence. With this view, the suppression 
of truth was often more important than its discovery, 
and, in such cases, executions were so contrived that 
no inconvenient disclosures should be made to the 
people. Particular persons connected with the court 
were directed to attend, who were placed near enough 
to hear and see all that passed, whilst to the mul¬ 
titude at large the whole spectacle was, for the most 
part, a piece of dumb show. Such an account of the 
proceeding was then published as suited the objects of 
the government, without fear of any contradiction. 

The same course which had been adopted at the 
executions of Norfolk, Essex, and several other indi¬ 
viduals, whose fate excited a strong popular interest, 
was followed at that of Garnet. The Deans of Win¬ 
chester and St. Paul’s were directed to attend, and 
the Recorder of London, Sir Henry Montague, * was 

* He was afterwards Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, and in 
1626 was created Earl of Manchester. The Recorder was brother to 
Dr. James Montague, the Dean of Westminster. 


GARNET’S EXECUTION. 


257 


specially authorised by the King to be present, and to 
put certain questions to the prisoner. Under these 
circumstances, the relation of the execution, afterwards 
published by authority, and circulated with the garbled 
report of the trial, cannot be supposed to be impartial 
or accurate. The account given by Dr. Abbott in his 
“ Antilogia,” though it corresponds in most particulars 
with the narrative commonly published with the trial, 
is rather more complete and temperate, the substance 
of it Is therefore inserted here in preference to the 
more commonly-received narration. 

On the 3d day of May, 1606, Garnet was drawn Garnet’s 

.... ,. . . . Execution 

upon a hurdle, according to the usual practice, to a 
place of execution prepared in St. Paul’s Churchyard. 

The Recorder of London, the Dean of St. Paul’s, and 
the Dean of Winchester, were present by the command 
of the King; the former in the King’s name, and 
the two latter in the name of God and Christ, to assist 
Garnet with such advice as suited the condition of a 
dying man. As soon as he had ascended the scaffold, 
which was much elevated in order that the people 
might behold the spectacle, Garnet saluted the Re¬ 
corder somewhat familiarly, who told him that “ it was 
expected from him that he should publicly deliver his 
real opinion respecting the conspiracy and treason— 
that it was now of no use to dissemble, as all was 
clearly and manifestly proved; but that if, in the true 
spirit of repentance, he was willing to satisfy the 
Christian world by declaring his hearty compunction, 
he might freely state what he pleased.” The Deans 


258 HIS CONDUCT ON THE SCAFFOLD. 

then told him, “ that they were present on that oc¬ 
casion by authority, in order to suggest to him such 
matters as might be useful for his soul; that they 
desired to do this without offence, and exhorted him to 
prepare and settle himself for another world, and to 
commence his reconciliation with God by a sincere and 
saving repentance.” To this exhortation, Garnet 
replied, “ that he had already done so, and that he had 
before satisfied himself in this respect.” The clergy¬ 
men then suggested that “ he would do well to declare 
his mind to the people.” Then Garnet said to those 
near him, “ I always disapproved of tumults and se¬ 
ditions against the King; and if this crime of the 
Powder Treason had been completed, I should have 
abhorred it with my whole soul and conscience.” 
They then advised him to declare as much to the 
people. “ I am very weak,” said he, “ and my voice 
fails me; if I should speak to the people, I cannot 
make them hear me; it is impossible that they should 
hear me.” Then said Mr. Recorder, “ Mr. Garnet, 
if you will come with me, I will take care that they 
shall hear you;” and going before him, led him to 
the western end of the scaffold. He still hesitated to 
address the people, but the Recorder urged him to 
speak his mind freely, promising to repeat his words 
aloud to the multitude. Garnet then addressed the 
crowd as follows : “ My good fellow-citizens, I am 
come hither on the Morrow of the Invention of the 
Holy Cross, to see an end of all my pains and troubles 
in this world. I here declare before you all, that 


HIS ADDRESS TO THE SPECTATORS. 


259 


9 


I consider the late treason and conspiracy against the 
state to be cruel and detestable : and, for my part, 
all designs and endeavours against the King were 
ever misliked by me; and if this attempt had been 
perfected as it was designed, I think it would have 
been altogether damnable: and I pray for all pros¬ 
perity to the King, the Queen, and the Royal Family.” 
Here he paused, and the Recorder then reminded him 
to “ask pardon of the King for that which he had 
attempted.” “ I do so,” said Garnet, “ as far as I have 
sinned against him ; namely, in that I did not reveal 
that whereof I had a general knowledge from Mr. 
Catesby—but not otherwise.” Then said the Dean of 
Winchester, “ Mr. Garnet, I pray you deal clearly in 
this matter; you were certainly privy to the whole 
business.” “ God forbid!” said Garnet, “ I never 
understood any thing of the design of blowing up of 
the Parliament-House.” “ Nay,” replied the Dean of 
Winchester, “it is manifest that all the particulars 
were known to you, and you have declared under your 
own hand that Green way told you all the circumstances 
in Essex.” “ That,” said Garnet, “ was in secret 
confession, which I could by no means reveal.” Then 
said the Dean, “ You have yourself, Mr. Garnet, almost 
acknowledged that this was only a pretence; for you 
have openly confessed that Greenway told you not in 
confession, but by way of confession, and that he came 
of purpose to you with the design of making a con¬ 
fession ; but you answered that it was not necessary 
that you should know the full extent of his know- 


260 


MAKES A QUALIFIED ADMISSION. 


ledge.” The Dean further reminded him that “ he 
had affirmed under his own hand that this was not 
told him by way of confessing a sin, but by way of 
conference and consultation; and that Greenway and 
Catesby both came to confer with him upon that 
business; and that as often as he saw Greenway he 
would ask him about that business because it troubled 
him.” “ Most certainly,” said Garnet, “ I did so in 
order to prevent it, for I always misliked it.” Then 
said the Dean, “You only withheld your approbation 
till the Pope had given his opinion.” “But I was 
well persuaded,” said Garnet, “that the Pope would 
never approve the design.” “ Your intention,” said 
the Dean of Winchester, “ was clear from those two 
breves which you received from Pome for the exclusion 
of the King.” “That,” said Garnet, “was before the 
King came in.” “ But if you knew nothing of the 
particulars of the business,” said the Dean of 
Winchester, “ why did you send Baynham to inform 
the Pope ? for this also you have confessed in your 
examinations.” Garnet replied, “ I have already 
answered to all these matters on my trial, and I 
acknowledge every thing that is contained in my 
written confessions.” 

The Kecorder here interposed, and reminded Garnet, 
with respect to his assertion that lie had only a general 
knowledge of the Plot from Catesby, that the following 
four points were expressly acknowledged by himself in 
writing, and that his confessions to that purpose were 
in the King’s hands. 


REMONSTRANCE OF THE RECORDER. 


261 


1. That Greenway had confessed the matter to him 
not as a sin, but for the sake of advice. 

2. That Catesby and Greenway had come together 
to him to obtain his advice. 

3. That Greenway long afterwards had a conference 
with him in Essex, concerning the particulars of the 
Powder Plot. 

4. That Green way, being asked by himself, who 
should be the Protector after the crime was committed, 
answered, that this matter was referred till after the 
Plot should have taken effect. 

The Kecorder then produced the several papers, in 
which Garnet had expressly admitted these matters. 
The King had arranged this, in order that if Garnet 
should, after all his previous confessions, return to a 
denial of his guilt on the scaffold, the means of con¬ 
victing him by his own testimony might be at hand. 
As soon as the Recorder began to produce the papers, 
Garnet, being unwilling to have his confessions publicly 
read, told him “ That he might spare himself that 
trouble; that he readily acknowledged whatever he 
had signed with his hand to be true; and that, 
inasmuch as he had not declared the knowledge of the 
Plot which had been generally imparted to him, he 
owned himself to be justly condemned, and asked 
pardon of the King.” Then turning his discourse 
again to the people, at the instance of the Recorder, 
he proceeded to the same effect as before, declaring, 
“ That he wholly misliked that cruel and inhuman 
design, and that he had never sanctioned or approved 


262 HIS FURTHER ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE. 

of any such attempts against the King and State; and 
that this project, if it had succeeded, would have been 
in his mind most damnable.” The whole of this was 
repeated by the Recorder in a louder voice to the 
people, so that those might hear who, by reason of the 
distance, could not have heard Garnet’s voice. Garnet 
then, in a few words, denied emphatically the scan¬ 
dalous reports which had been circulated respecting the 
intercourse between him and Anne Yaux. 

After he had finished speaking, he turned towards 
the gallows, and having asked the Recorder how much 
time would be given him for prayer, he received for 
answer that he might limit his own time in this 
respect, and that no one should interrupt him. He 
then kneeled down at the foot of the ladder, but 
conducted his devotions very coldly, and seemed 
to be unable to apply himself steadily and piously 
to prayer. Indeed so little affected was he in praying, 
that he looked round from time to time, and listened 
to what was said by the attendants, sometimes even 
answering to what they said; so that he appeared 
to mutter his prayers more for form and appearance 
than from any devotion of mind. When he had 
arisen from his knees, and was about to put off 
Ills clothes, the Recorder again addressed him, saying, 
“ That he feared he was about to make his end as his 
life had been, his main object being still to attempt to 
extenuate his crime by deceit and duplicity.” One 
of those standing near him then asked him, “ Whether 
he still held the same opinion as he had formerly ex- 


REFUSES TO SPEAK ON EQUIVOCATION. 263 

pressed about equivocation, and whether he thought it 
lawful to equivocate at the point of death?” He 
refused to give an opinion at that time ; and the Dean 
of St. Paul’s sharply inveighing against equivocation, 
and saying that doctrine of that kind was the parent of 
all such impious treasons and designs as those for which 
he suffered, Garnet said, “ that he had elsewhere 
declared his opinion how and when equivocation was 
lawful, and that he should, at any rate, use no equi¬ 
vocation now.” The Dean rejoined, “ But you have 
recorded strange doctrines on that subject in your 
written confessions.” “ In those confessions,” said 
Garnet, “ I have stated my real opinions, and to them 
I refer you.” The Recorder then assured him, as he 
seemed still to entertain some hope of life, “ that there 
was now no hope of pardon for him, and that it there¬ 
fore behoved him to declare any thing within his 
knowledge, which might be useful to the state; and at 
all events, that it was desirable that he should declare 
to the people, whether he was satisfied of the justice of 
his condemnation.” Garnet answered that he had 
nothin^ further to confess, but that he was esteemed 
more guilty than he really was, inasmuch as he was not 
the author or contriver of the plot. When he had un¬ 
dressed himself to his shirt, he said, with a low voice, 
to those who stood nearest to him, “ There is no 
salvation for you, unless you hold the Catholic faith.” 
They answered, “We doubt not that we do hold the 
Catholic faith.” “ But,” said he, “ the only Catholic 
faith is that professed by the Church of Rome.” They 


264 


HIS LAST WORDS. 


replied, “ that upon this matter he was altogether in 
error.” He then ascended the ladder, and when he had 
entirely undressed himself, he requested the execu¬ 
tioner to give him notice before he threw him off. He 
then addressed the people in the following words :— 
“ I commend myself to all good Catholics. I am 
grieved that I have offended the King by not revealing 
the design entertained against him, and that I did not 
use more diligence in preventing the execution of the 
Plot. Moreover, I pray God to bless the King’s 
Majesty, with the Queen, and all their posterity, and 
grant him long to live and reign. I commend myself 
also most humbly to the Lords of His Majesty’s Council, 
and beseech them not to judge hardly of me. I am 
sorry that I dissembled with them, and that I did not 
declare the truth until it was proved against me; but 
I did not think they had such sure proofs against me 
till they shewed them to me. As soon as I perceived 
this, I thought it most becoming to confess, but in the 
absence of clear proofs against me, it would have been 
unlawful for me to have accused myself. As to my 
brother Greenway, I wish the truth respecting him 
were known. I would never haye charged him, if I 

had not believed him to be bevond the sea. But it 

** 

seemed right to me to confess the truth, which I wish 
he had done also, that false rumours might not make 
both of us appear more criminal than we really are. I 
beseech all men that Catholics may not fare the worse 
for my sake, and I exhort all Catholics to take care not 
to mix themselves with seditious or traitorous designs 

c 


265 




HIS LAST WORDS AND DEATH. 

against the King.” Having thus spoken, he raised his 
hands and made the sign of the cross upon his forehead 
and breast, saying, “ In nomine Pair is, Filii , et 
Spiritus sancti! Jesus Maria! Maria , mater gratice ! 
mater misericordice! Tu me ab hoste protege , et hard 
mortis suscipe!” Then he said, “ In manus tuas 
Fonline, commendo spiritum meum , quia tu redemisti 
me Fomine, Feus veritatis /” Then again crossing him¬ 
self* he said, “ Per crucis hoc signum fugiat procul omne 
malignum! Injige crucem tuam, Fomine, in corde meo 
and again, “ Jesus Maria l Maria mater gratice /” In 
the midst of these prayers the ladder was drawn away, 
and, by the express command of the King, he remained 
hanging from the gallows until he was quite dead, 

After the execution of Garnet and Hall, the most Account of 

... the Miracle 

absurd tales of miracles performed, in vindication of ofGarnet ’ s 

■*- Straw. 

their innocence, and in honour of their martyrdom, 
were industriously circulated by the Jesuits in England 
and in foreign countries. Thus it was said,—and the 
story is repeated by Father More, in his history of the 
Jesuits,* by Ribadeneira in his Catalogue of Martyrs, 
and other Roman Catholic historians,—that after Hall 
had been embowelled, according to the usual sentence in 
cases of treason, his entrails continued burning sixteen 
successive days, though great quantities of water were 
poured upon them to extinguish the flames;—the 
sixteen days denoting the number of years that he 
laboured in propagating the Roman Catholic religion in 
England. Father More also relates, that from that par- 
# Mori Hist. Soc. Jesu, p. 335. 


N 


Wilkinson’s 
story of the 
origin of the 
Miracle. 


266 MIRACLE OF THE STRAW. 

ticular spot, on the lawn at Hendlip, where Garnet and 
Hall last set their feet before their removal, “ a new 
and hitherto unknown species of grass grew up into the 
exact shape of an imperial crown, and remained for a 
long time without being trodden down by the feet of 
passengers, or eaten up by the cattle.” It was asserted 
too, that, immediately after Garnet’s execution, a 
spring of oil suddenly burst forth at the western end of 
St. Paul’s, on the spot where the saint was martyred.* 

But among these absurd illustrations of the supersti¬ 
tion and credulity of the times, the miracle of Garnet’s 
Straw was chiefly insisted upon as a supernatural con- 
firmation of the Jesuit’s innocence and martyrdom. 
It is related at great length, and with a full detail of 
circumstances, by Eudasmon-Joannes, by Father More, 
and almost all the earlier historians of the English 
mission. In Spain, a “ Ballad of the Death of Father 
Garnet,” with the legend and figure of the miraculous 
straw, was circulated generally through the provinces, 
and excited so much attention that the English am¬ 
bassador was directed by James to require its sup¬ 
pression by the Spanish government.! 

The original fabricator of the miracle of the straw 
was one John Wilkinson, a young Koman Catholic, 
who, at the time of Garnet’s trial and execution was 
about to pass over into France, to commence his 
studies at the Jesuits’ college at St. Omers. Some 
time after his arrival there, Wilkinson was attacked by 

* Bishop Hall’s Sermon before the King, Sept. 19th, 1624. 

f Winwood’s Memorials, vol. ii. p. 336. 


WILKINSON’S NARRATIVE. 


207 


a dangerous disease, from which there was no hope of 
his recovery; and while in this state he gave utterance 
to the story, which Eudaemon-Joannes relates in his 
own words, as follows:—“ The day before Father 
Garnet’s execution, my mind was suddenly impressed 
(as by some external impulse) with a strong desire to 
witness his death, and bring home with me some 
relique of him. I had at that time conceived so 
certain a persuasion that my desire would be gratified, 
that I did not for a moment doubt that I should wit¬ 
ness some immediate testimony from God in favour of 
the innocence of his saint; though as often as the idea 
occurred to my mind, I endeavoured to drive it away, 
that I might not vainly appear to tempt Providence by 
looking for a miracle where it was not necessarily to be 
expected. Early the next morning I betook myself to 
the place of execution, and, arriving there before any 
other person, stationed myself close to the scaffold, 
though I was afterwards somewhat forced from my posi¬ 
tion as the crowd increased.” Having then described 
the details of the execution, he proceeds thus:— 
“ Garnet’s limbs having been divided into four parts, 
and placed together with the head in a basket, in order 
that they might be exhibited according to law in some 
conspicuous place, the crowd began to disperse. I then 
again approached close to the scaffold, and stood 
between the cart and the place of execution ; and as I 
lingered in that situation, still burning with the desire 
of bearing away some relique, that miraculous ear of 
straw, since so highly celebrated, came, I know not 

N 2 


268 


WILKINSON’S NARRATIVE. 


how, into my hand. A considerable quantity of dry 
straw had been thrown with Garnet’s head and quarters 
from the scaffold into the basket; but whether this ear 
came into my hand from the scaffold or from the 
basket, I cannot venture to affirm; this only I can 
truly say, that a straw of this kind was thrown towards 
me before it had touched the ground. This straw I 
afterwards delivered to Mrs. N., a matron of singular 
Catholic piety, who inclosed it in a bottle, which being 
rather shorter than the straw, it became slightly bent. 
A few days afterwards Mrs. N. showed the straw in the 
bottle to a certain noble person, her intimate acquaint¬ 
ance, who, looking at it attentively, at length said, 
‘I can see nothing in it but a man’s face.’ Mrs. N. 
and myself being astonished at this unexpected ex¬ 
clamation, again and again examined the ear of the 
straw, and distinctly perceived in it a human counte¬ 
nance, which others also coming in as casual spectators, 
or expressly called by us as witnesses, likewise beheld at 
that time. This is, as God knoweth, the true history 
of Father Garnet’s Straw.” 

Such is Wilkinson’s circumstantial account of the 
miracle. In those days of ignorance and superstition, 
when the public mind was in a state of great excite¬ 
ment respecting Garnet, it was a story well calculated 
to attract attention. Among the lower orders of the 
people, in particular, the prodigy was circulated with 
much diligence, and believed with implicit confidence ; 
while the higher class of Roman Catholics who knew 
better, or ought to have known better, chose to foster 


EXAGGERATION OF THE STORY. 


269 


the delusion. The story, which was originally confined 
to the vulgar, gained ground by frequent repetition, 
until at last, and within a year from the time of 
Gurnet’s death, by that love of the wonderful, and that 
tendency to exaggeration, which are the natural results 
of popular ignorance, it was declared, and currently 
believed, by Roman Catholics both in England and 
abroad, that an undoubted sign from heaven had been 
given for the establishment of Garnet’s innocence. 
Crowds of persons of all ranks daily flocked to see the 
miraculous straw. The Spanish ambassador saw and 
believed; and the ambassador from the Archduke, not 
only saw at the time, but long afterwards testified 
what he had seen by a written certificate, which is 
published verbatim by Father More.* In process of 
time the success of the imposture encouraged those 
who contrived it, or who had an interest in upholding 
it, to add considerably to the miracle as it was at first 
promulgated. Wilkinson, and the original observers 
of the prodigy, merely represented that the appearance 
of a face was shown on so diminutive a scale, upon the 
husk or sheath of a single grain, as scarcely to be 
visible unless specifically pointed out; but a much 
more imposing image was afterwards discovered. Two 
faces appeared upon the middle part of the straw, both 
surrounded with rays of glory; the head of the princi¬ 
pal figure, which represented Garnet, was encircled 
with a martyr’s crown, and the face of a cherub 
appeared in the midst of his beard. In this improved 
* More’s Hist. Soc. Jesu, p. 330. 


270 


EVIDENCE ON THE INQUIRY. 


state of the miracle, the story was circulated in 
England, and excited universal attention; and thus 
depicted, the miraculous straw became generally known 
throughout the Christian world. “I had thought ” 
(says Bishop Hall, in a contemporary letter, alluding to 
the “ noise which Garnet’s straw had made ”)—“ I had 
thought that our age had too many grey hairs, and 
with time, experience, and with experience, craft, not 
to have descried a juggler: but now I see by its sim¬ 
plicity it declines to its second childhood. I only 
wonder how Fawkes and Catesby escaped the honour 
of saints and privilege of miracles.” 

Such, however, was the extent to which this ridi¬ 
culous fable was believed, and so great was the scandal 
which it occasioned among the Protestants, that Arch¬ 
bishop Bancroft was commissioned by the Privy Council 
to call before him such persons as had been most active 
in propagating it, and, if possible, to detect and punish 
the impostors. 

Formal in- The archbishop commenced the inquiry in Novem- 

Arohbi/hop ber, 1606, and a great number of persons were ex- 

bur 7- amined; but as Wilkinson, who was supposed to be 
the chief impostor, was abroad, and as the inquiry com¬ 
pletely exposed the fraud, though the hand that 
effected it remained undiscovered, no proceedings seem 
to have been taken to punish the parties concerned in 
it. It appeared upon this inquiry, that “ Mrs. N., 
the matron of singular Catholic piety,” mentioned with 
so much parade in the declaration made by Wilkinson 
at St. Omers, was the wife of one Hugh Griffiths, a 


EVIDENCE ON THE INQUIRY. 


271 


tailor, with whom Wilkinson lodged; and the “ noble 
person, her intimate acquaintance,” who was supposed 
to have first seen the face of Garnet in the straw, 
turned out to be a footman named Laithwaite, in the 
service of a lady of quality. Griffiths and Laithwaite 
were separately examined by the archbishop, and varied 
materially in their accounts of the discovery. The 
tailor, in his first examination, on November 27th, 1606, 
stated that “ Wilkinson had brought home the straw 
from Garnet’s execution, and given it to him, and that 
he had delivered it to his wife, charging her to take 
great care of it, and to enclose it in something which 
might prevent the spots of blood upon it from be¬ 
coming effaced.” He further stated, that his wife, 
with the assistance of Wilkinson, inclosed it in a glass, 
bottle. He at first said that this was done about nine 
or ten days after Garnet’s execution; but in a subse¬ 
quent examination he corrected himself, saying that, 
upon consideration, he recollected that it was done on 
the very day on which the execution took place; but 
that, as Wilkinson lodged in the house for seven weeks 
afterwards, he might have subsequently had it in his 
possession. At the time of the inclosure of the straw 
in the bottle, and for some time afterwards, he said 
nothing was seen of the face. Griffiths then went on to 
depose, “ That about the 18th of September, nearly five 
months after Garnet’s death, he was looking attentively 
at the ear of straw (which he gives no reason for not 
having done before, except that he had not leisure), 
and thought he perceived a face depicted on it, which 
he immediately pointed out to his wife and one Thomas 


272 


EVIDENCE ON THE INQUIRY. 


Laithwaite, then present.” Laithwaite was then ex¬ 
amined, who contradicted Griffiths materially, inasmuch 
as he claimed for himself the honour of having made 
the first discovery, which was indeed originally as¬ 
cribed to him by Wilkinson. “ I was one day sitting,” 
says Laithwaite,* “ by the fire in Griffiths’ house, 
and looking intently at the straw, when I thought I 
saw a man’s head upon it. The day was dark and 
cloudy, so that, as I sat in the inner part of the room, 
the appearance was not very distinct; for which reason 
I took it to the window, where I discerned the face 
beyond all doubt. Mrs. Griffiths wondered why I 
examined the bottle so industriously; upon which I 
pointed out the face to her, and afterwards to her 
husband and to Wilkinson. It was visible to all three 
of them, and all of them declared that they had never 
seen it before.” Previously to the institution of this 
inquiry, the straw had been withdrawn or destroyed; 
but several persons were examined by the Archbishop of 
Canterbury who had repeatedly seen it, and were there¬ 
fore fully capable of describing it. Among these, one 
Robert Barnes, a gentleman of Cambridgeshire, declared, f 
“ that the straw having been shown to him by Griffiths’s 
wife, he had discoursed of it to several persons when 
walking in St. Paul’s, and told them at the time, as his 
real opinion was, that it seemed to him a thing of no 
moment; that he saw nothing in the straw but what 
any painter could readily have drawn there ; that he 
considered it so little like a miracle that he never 

# Examination, December 2nd, 1606. 

f Examination, November 27th, 1606. 


EVIDENCE ON THE INQUIRY. 273 

asked the woman how it was done. The face,” he 
said, “ seemed to him to be described by a hair-pencil 
or some very slender instrument; and that, upon the 
whole, he saw nothing whatever wonderful in the 
thing, except that it should be possible to draw a 
man’s face so distinctly, upon so very small a space.” 
A painter, named Francis Bowen, who had been shown 
the straw by Garnet’s devoted friend, Anne Yaux, 
was also examined by the archbishop. He made a 
drawing of the straw from recollection, upon the 
margin of the paper which contained his examination, 
a copy of which drawing was published in Dr. Abbott’s 
Antilogia. Bowen said,* “ he thought that beyond 
all doubt a skilful artist might depict upon a straw a 
human countenance as artificially as that which he had 
seen, and even more so; and therefore that he believed 
it quite possible for an impostor to have fabricated this 
pretended miracle.” With respect to the exaggeration 
of the miracle after this period, the testimony of 
Griffiths himself, given in his first examination, is 
sufficiently conclusive. “ As far as I could discover,” 
said he, “ the face in the straw was no more like 
Garnet than it was like any other man with a long 
beard ; and truly, I think, that no one can assert that 
the face was like Garnet, because it was so small; and 
if any man saith that the head was surrounded with a 
light, or rays, he saith that which is untrue.” 

Many other persons were examined, but no distinct 
evidence could be obtained as to the immediate author 
* Examination, November 27th, 1606. 

N 3 


274 


NO PROCEEDINGS TAKEN UPON IT. 


of the imposture. It was quite clear, however, that 
the face might have been described on the straw by 
Wilkinson, or under his direction, during the interval 
of many weeks which occurred between the time of 
Garnet’s death and the discovery of the pretended 
miracle in the tailor’s house. At all events, the 
inquiry had the desired effect of checking the progress 
of the popular delusion in England; and upon this 
the Privy Council took no further proceedings against 
any of the parties, wisely considering that the whole 
story was far too ridiculous to form the subject of 
serious prosecution and punishment. 

Some apology is perhaps due to the reader for thus 
bringing forward in the nineteenth century the idle 
and foolish delusions of a former age. But the fable of 
Garnet’s Straw is not altogether a useless legend. It 
illustrates in a remarkable manner the prevalence of 
gross superstition, not only among the lower orders of 
Roman Catholics of that day, but also among well- 
instructed and enlightened Jesuits, such as L’Heureux 
and Father More. The latter were no doubt influ¬ 
enced by a strong disposition to remove the imputation 
which Garnet’s conviction had thrown upon the sanc¬ 
tity of their order by thus imposing upon the mul¬ 
titude the belief of a Divine interference in his favour ; 
but it is most probable that they were also believers in 
this miracle. “ Credulity and imposture,” says Lord 
Bacon,* “ are nearly allied ; and a readiness to believe 
and to deceive are constantly united in the same person.” 

* De Augmentis Scientiaram. 


QUESTION OF GARNET’S MORAL GUILT. 


275 


CHAPTER IX. 

Controversy respecting Garnet's Moral Guilt—History of the Discus¬ 
sions—Abbott’s Antilogia—Obstacles to a right determination of 
the subject—Garnet's Apology—Examination of its validity—On 
the duty of concealing facts mentioned in Sacramental Confession 
—Opinions of Roman Catholic Divines on the subject—Garnet’s 
admission of Moral Guilt. 

The general question of Garnet’s moral guilt has 
been the subject of warm discussion at various times 
during the last two centuries. Those who have de¬ 
bated this matter since the trial have undoubtedly far 
better means of forming an accurate judgment upon it 
than the court or jury upon the trial, in consequence of 
the important evidence obtained by means of Garnet’s 
confessions after the close of the judicial proceedings. 
The discussion of the subject at the tune was excited 
and voluminous. In the course of the year after 
Garnet’s execution, the question arose incidentally in 
the course of the controversy respecting the new oath 
of allegiance imposed by the Statute 3 Jac. I., cap. 4. 
The King having, in his “ Apologie for the Oath of 
Allegiance,” asserted that Garnet, “ the leader of the 
band of Jesuits in England,” had died, acknowledging 


History of 
the contro¬ 
versy re¬ 
specting 1 Gar¬ 
net’s moral 
guilt. 


276 HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY. 

his privity to the Plot by other means than sacramental 
confession, was indignantly contradicted by Bellarmine, 
who, imder the assumed name of Matthaeus Tortus, 
published an Answer to the King’s “ Apologie.” Laun- 
celot Andrews, Bishop of Chichester, replied to this 
work of Bellarmine, by an extremely acute and power¬ 
ful pamphlet, entitled, “ Tortura Torti,” in which the 
question respecting the manner and extent of Garnet’s 
acquaintance with the Plot is fully and ably argued. 
James also noticed Bellarmine’s work in a “ Premoni¬ 
tion to all Christian Princes,” prefixed to a revised 
edition of his “ Apologie.” Upon this, Bellarmine 
wrote an “ Apology for his Answer to the Book of 
King James I.,” in which he reasserted Garnet’s 
innocence of any criminal participation in the Plot. In 
the year 1610 a work appeared, entitled, “ An Apology 
for the most Reverend Father Henry Garnet against 
the charge of Sir Edward Coke,” written by a person 
who assumed the name of Eudsemon-Joannes, and de¬ 
scribed himself as a Cretan Jesuit; but who was sup¬ 
posed by contemporaries to be one of the expatriated 
English missionaries. It is, however, sufficiently ascer¬ 
tained that the real name of the author of the several 
works published under the title of Eudaemon-Joannes 
was L’Heureux. He was a native of Candia, and a 
Jesuit of high reputation for learning, who taught 
theology at the University of Padua, and was ap¬ 
pointed by Pope Urban VIII. Rector of the Greek 
College at Rome. He was also commissioned by the 
same Pope to attend Cardinal Barberini, when he went 


HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY. 


277 


as Legate to Paris.* The book of Eudcemon-Joannes 
was adroitly and plausibly written, and excited so 
strong a sensation throughout Europe in favour of 
Garnet, that James considered it necessary to provide 
some effective antidote to the poison. He therefore 
employed the celebrated Isaac Casaubon, whom he had 
about that time invited to England, to refute the 
Jesuit's arguments, and supplied him with all the con¬ 
fessions and declarations of the conspirators, and of 
Garnet himself, together with various other documents 
necessary for the purpose. Casaubon executed the duty 
imposed upon him with a degree of skill and candour 
worthy of his enlightened character; and his “ Epistle 
to Fronto Ducaeus,” which appeared in 1611, is un¬ 
questionably one of the best works which were pub¬ 
lished on the subject. Eudsemon-Joannes, in 1612, 
wrote an answer to Casaubon, by no means equal to his 
first work, and easily to be refuted by those who had 
access to the evidence possessed by the English Govern¬ 
ment. Still the impression produced upon the public 
mind by the arguments of Eudsemon-Joannes was not 
entirely removed. Roman Catholic writers continued 
to refer to his apology for Garnet as a triumphant and 
incontrovertible demonstration of the Jesuit’s inno¬ 
cence ; while the inaccurate and imperfect narration of 
the proceedings on his trial led to abundant false 
reasoning upon the subject. In this state of the 
controversy, Dr. Robert Abbott, the brother of the 
Archbishop of Canterbury, a man of the highest repu- 
* Biographie Universelle, titre L’Heureux. 


278 


ABBOTT’S ANTILOGIA. 


tation for talents and learning,* but a determined 
adversary of popery, and, from his controversies with 
Bellarmine and the Armlnians, denominated Malleus 
Papismi et Arminianismi, published his celebrated 
“ Antilogia adversus Apologiam Andrece Eudcemon 
Joannis.” It is manifest from the contents of this work, 
that during its composition, Dr. Abbott had free access 
to all the documentary evidence against Garnet which 
was in the possession of the Government. This he 
would readily obtain through his brother the Archbishop 
of Canterbury ; and, indeed, there is a memorandum 
still existing in the State-Paper Office, which records 
that, on October 9 th, 1612, a great number of the 
documents relating to the Plot, were delivered to the 
Archbishop of Canterbury, and that, on July 1st, 1614, 
they were again returned by him to their proper 
depository. During this interval of time, the “ Anti¬ 
logia ” was composed and published ; and in conse¬ 
quence of the vast body of evidence it contains, drawn 

* Dr. Abbott is thus mentioned by Wood, in bis Athense Oxoni- 
enses :—“ In the beginning of the reign of James I. he was made 
chaplain in ordinary to him; in the year 1609 he was unanimously 
elected Master of Baliol College, and in the beginning of November 
1610 he was made Prebendary of Normarton,in the church of South- 
well. In 1612 he was appointed doctor of the theological chair, 
usually called the King’s Professor of Divinity, by his Majesty; and 
in 1615 he was nominated by him to be Bishop of Salisbury, merely, 
as ‘tis said, for his incomparable lectures, read in the Divinity School, 
concerning the King’s supreme power, against Bellarmine and 
Suarez, and for his Antilogia , which he a little before had published. 
He was a person of unblameable life and conversation, a profound 
divine, most admirably well read in the fathers, councils, and 
schoolmen, and a more moderate Calvinian than either of his two 
predecessors (Holland and Humphrey) in the Divinity chair were.” 


DR. WILLIAMS’S HISTORY. 


279 


from the original materials supplied by the Government, 
as well as the powerful reasoning of the author, it is, 
beyond all comparison, the most important work which 
appeared in the course of the controversy. It abounds 
in the scurrilous language and personal imputations so 
common in the political and religious controversies of 
that time. But it is peculiarly valuable at the present 
day in assisting us to form an accurate judgment upon 
the main subject of the controversy, because it gives the 
substance of much documentary evidence not now to 
be found, and removes many doubts and fills up many 
chasms in the history of the transaction.* The English 
writers, Bishop Andrews and Dr. Abbott, as well as 
Casaubon, possessed a great advantage over their foreign 
adversaries, in the facilities they had of using the 
whole evidence which had been obtained on the sub¬ 
ject ; whereas, Bellarmine and Eudasmon-Joannes were 
obliged to found their defence of Garnet on the facts 
contained in the imperfect report of the trial, as pub¬ 
lished by authority. 

In 1678 the celebrated Popish Plot again excited a 
fierce controversy between the Roman Catholics and 
Protestants; in the course of which the Bishop of Lin¬ 
coln republished the papers respecting the Gunpowder 
Treason, printed by authority of James I. at the time 
of the discovery of the conspiracy, and appended to 
them a number of letters written by Sir Everard Digby 
from the Tower, then lately discovered, and which are 
not only extremely interesting, but throw much light 
* The “ Antilogia ” is now become extremely rare. 


280 


OBSTACLES TO A RIGHT 


upon this question. Dr. Williams, an acute and sensi¬ 
ble writer, also published at this time a “ History of the 
Gunpowder Treason,” and in reply to certain strictures 
upon his account of the facts, afterwards wrote a Vindi¬ 
cation of it, which contains many powerful remarks 
upon the subject of Garnet’s implication in the Plot. 
It is clear, however, not only from the contents of his 
pamphlet, but from a summary of his authorities given 
at the end of his Vindication, that Dr. Williams did 
not consult the original documents. At this latter 
period Garnet’s full implication in the Gunpowder 
Plot was generally assumed by Protestant writers, and 
was repeatedly referred to as proving the dangerous 
principles of the Jesuits. In more recent times, the 
great question of Roman Catholic emancipation, as it 
was termed, once more raised up the spirit of contro¬ 
versy respecting Garnet, and his connexion with the 
Powder Plot; and Mr. Butler’s remarks on the subject, 
in his “ Memoirs of the English Catholics,” which, 
however partial and superficial, had, at least, the merit 
of being temperate, called forth warm and animated 
replies from Mr. Townsend, and various other writers 
of less eminence and ability. 

Two causes have hitherto operated in the controver¬ 
sies on this subject to impede the successful investiga¬ 
tion of the truth : the first is the very imperfect know¬ 
ledge of facts upon which the arguments on both sides 
have generally proceeded; and secondly the prevalence 
of a violent party spirit, stimulated by the peculiar cir¬ 
cumstances of the periods in which the debates have 


DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION. 281 

arisen. In 1678, as well as in the earlier controversy, 
the evidence which formed the basis of the reasoning 
on the Jesuits’ side consisted of nothing more than so 
much as the government had thought proper to publish 
in the “ Discourse of the Manner of the Discovery of 
the Gunpowder Plot,” and in the meagre reports of the 
trials; and though, in later times, original materials 
have been referred to, which might, if impartially used, 
have gone far to set the question at rest for ever, they 
have been so distorted and misapplied by party spirit 
and prejudice, and the discussion has been conducted 
so much more in the spirit of political rancour than of 
candid inquiry, that the only result has been to widen 
the unfortunate breach which had so long existed 
between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant, with¬ 
out advancing a step towards the solution of the histo¬ 
rical difficulties. It is most absurd and unjust to 
argue, from the fact that a particular Jesuit, two 
hundred years ago, followed his pernicious principles 
into a wicked course of action, that therefore the prin¬ 
ciples and doctrines of Roman Catholics at the present 
day must be practically opposed to morality and good 
government. Garnet’s most obnoxious and dangerous 
opinions were the opinions of a section only of those 
who professed the Roman Catholic religion; they were 
not sanctioned generally even by the Jesuits of his 
day, but were maintained and encouraged by none ex¬ 
cept the most fanatical and extravagant casuists of that 
party. In the writings of several learned Jesuits in 
the seventeenth century, there are no traces of such 


282 


GARNET’S APOLOGY. 


Discussion 
of the truth 
of Garnet’s 
justification. 


extreme opinions; within fifty years after Garnet’s 
time they were ridiculed and refuted in the Lettres 
Provinciales of Pascal, who was a conscientious Ro¬ 
manist ; they were disclaimed as doctrines of the 
Church of Rome, in the most solemn manner, by the 
unfortunate Lord Stafford,* who was also a conscien¬ 
tious Romanist; and in the doctrinal works of Roman 
Catholic divines in our own times they are generally 
disavowed and condemned. If it be unfair and unrea¬ 
sonable to impute to modern Roman Catholics the false 
and mischievous opinions of Garnet, it is still more 
manifestly unjust to make them responsible for his 
particular crimes , unless it could be shown that they 
entertain his opinions, and also that such crimes are 
their natural and probable result. 

No good reason can be assigned, therefore, why the 
question of Garnet’s participation in the Powder 
Treason should not be discussed with the same calm¬ 
ness and with the same indifference as to the issue of 
the reasoning as we bring to the investigation of any 
other historical fact. The problem of his delinquency 
or innocence can be of no practical importance at the 
present day; and its solution is most likely to be 
attained by laying aside all party considerations, and 
temperately and critically weighing the evidence. 

The substance of Garnet’s justification, as pleaded by 
himself and his apologists, was, that he had only heard 
of the Plot from Green way, under the seal of sacra¬ 
mental confession; so that, in religion and conscience, 
# Howell’s State Trials, vol. vii. p. 1357. 


ITS VALIDITY - CONSIDERED. 


283 


his lips were entirely closed. Though precluded from 
disclosing the secret in any manner by a solemn sacra¬ 
ment, he represented, as his defence and excuse, that 
he abhorred the design of the Powder Treason, and en¬ 
deavoured to prevent its execution to the utmost of his 
power. This, therefore, is Garnet’s case on the trial of 
his character by posterity. It may not be altogether an 
unprofitable employment to consider the facts and argu¬ 
ments by which it is supported. 

With reference to his alleged obligation to secrecy on His religious 
religious grounds, it may be admitted, in limine , that if secrecy, 
the facts were as Garnet represented them, and if he 
actually received his knowledge of the Plot under the 
seal of sacramental confession, he was required by the 
more rigid doctrines of the order to which he belonged, 
not to reveal to any third person the important secret 
which had been communicated to him. This question 
is discussed by Martin Delrius, or Delrio, a learned 
Jesuit, contemporary with the Powder Plot, in his 
44 Disquisittones Magicoe and it is a singular circum¬ 
stance, that in this treatise, which was first published 
in 1600, and consequently several years before the 
actual occurrence of the plot, the very case of a 
gun powder conspiracy is put as an illustration of the 
writer’s argument. 44 There have been some jurists,” 
says Delrius,* 44 who have given it as their opinion, that 
with respect to crimes about to be committed, if the 
person confessing refuses to abandon his criminal 
purpose, and determines to persevere, it is lawful for 
* Disquis. Mag., lib. vi. p. 7. Edit. Venet. 1615. 


284 ON THE DUTY OF CONCEALING FACTS 

the confessor to disclose them for the purpose of pre¬ 
vention ; but this is a dangerous doctrine, and deters 
men from confession. The supporters of this doctrine 
may be right, if they limit it to the case of a person, 
who comes to his confessor with the pretence only of 
making his confession, but really with the intention of 
obtaining advice or of deceiving the confessor, or 
perhaps even of drawing him into a participation of his 
crime; for this is not a real sacramental confession, nor 
indeed is the matter in such cases confided under the 
seal of confession at all. But where a person comes 
with a sincere intention to confess and obtain absolution, 
and thus opens his mind under the protection of the 
seal of confession, unquestionably the general doctrine, 
that it is not lawful to disclose the secret, though it 
amount to treason against the state, must be adhered 
to; and this doctrine is confirmed by the authority of a 
majority of jurists and divines. They limit it, how¬ 
ever, in the first place, to the case of a true confession; 
and they admit, that the priest may strongly admonish 
the persons confessing to abstain from their criminal 
enterprise, and, if this produce no effect, may suggest 
to the bishop, or the civil magistrate, to look carefully 
for the wolf among their flock, and to guard narrowly 
the State, or give such other hints as may prevent 
mischief without revealing the particular confession. 
They add a second limitation, namely, that where the 
penitent has accomplices, and he himself is brought to 
repent of his design, and promises amendment, but a 
danger arises that the crime may be perpetrated by 


DECLARED IN CONFESSION. 


285 


others, it is lawful for the confessor to prevent mischief 
by revealing the secret, even without the consent of the 
person confessing. Both these limitations depend upon 
this question,—can a priest in any circumstances make 
use of the knowledge which he has obtained by means 
of confession to avert imminent mischief to the state ? 
For instance, a criminal confesses that he or some other 
person has placed gunpowder or other combustible 
matter under a certain house; and that unless this is 
removed, the house will inevitably be blown up, the 
sovereign killed, and as many as go into or out of the 
city be destroyed or brought into great danger,—in 
such a case, almost all the learned doctors, with few 
exceptions, assert that the confessor may reveal it, if 
he take due care that, neither directly or indirectly, he 
draws into suspicion the particular offence of the 
person confessing. But the contrary opinion is the 
safer and better doctrine, and more consistent with 
religion and with the reverence due to the holy rite of 
confession.” 

This passage is inserted at length, because it contains 
the most strenuous doctrine to be found in the writings 
of the Jesuits on this subject; and also because part of 
the doctrine it inculcates, respecting concealing con¬ 
fessions, seems to bear a great resemblance to the line 
of conduct which, according to his own statement, 
Garnet adopted. It is natural to suppose that a con¬ 
temporary treatise, upon a subject of doctrine, written 
by a Jesuit, would be in his hands; it is probable, 
indeed, that Delrius’s book was, at this time, well 


286 


OPINIONS OF ROMAN CATHOLIC 


known to the English Roman Catholics; and Sir 
Everard Digby possibly referred to it in his letter to his 
wife, when he says, “ I saw the principal point of the 
case (the- lawfulness of the Plot) judged in a Latin 
book of M.D. (Martin Delrius).”* 

It must here be observed, that this opinion of 
Delrius was by no means the common doctrine of the 
Jesuits of that day, but appears to have been one of 
those rigorous and extravagant tenets which were 
professed by the most fanatical of their party. Bel- 
larmine himself expressly admits*}- that “ if the per¬ 
son confessing be concealed, it is lawful for a priest 
to break the seal of confession, in order to avert a 
great calamity.” But he excuses Garnet by saying, 
that it was not lawful for him to declare a treason¬ 
able secret to an heretical king, who had no reverence 
for. the sacrament of confession, and who would have 
constrained him by torture to declare the person who 
had confessed the criminal design. “ Therefore,” says 
Bishop Andrews,! in his answer to Bellarmine, “ it 
follows from this argument that it is lawful and jus¬ 
tifiable to blow up such a King with gunpowder.” 
But besides the obvious absurdity of the apology,. the 
objection to it in the case of Garnet, is, that it is not 
the excuse which he ever pretended to make for him¬ 
self,—a remark which will be found to apply very 
generally to the arguments and answers which, since 

* Digby’s Letters, appended to the “ History of the Gunpowder 
Plot,” p. 249. Edit. 1G79. 

f Apologia pro Piesponsione, &c., cap. xiii. 178-9. 

X Eesponsio ad Bell. Apol., p. 316. [436, edit. 1851.] 


WRITERS ON THE SUBJECT. 


287 


his death, have been devised for him by the ingenuity 
of his apologists. It is hardly to be conceived, that, if 
the facts upon which such arguments and answers are 
founded were true, they would have been omitted by 
the person who was most intimately concerned in them, 
and who certainly was wanting neither in ability or 
courage to use such weapons as he had at his disposal. 

It is, however, not to be doubted, that at this 
period very rigorous doctrines upon the subject of 
confession prevailed among the Jesuits. Casaubon 
relates, that, a lew days after the assassination of 
Henry IV., he conversed with a Roman Catholic theo¬ 
logian, named Binet, in the Royal Library at Paris, 
upon the subject of Garnet’s punishment. In the 
warmth of discussion, Binet exclaimed, that “it was 
better that all the kings of the earth should perish 
than that the seal of confession should once be broken; 
for,” added he, “kingly government is a matter of 
human law, but the sacrament of confession is an 
institution of God.”* 

Admitting it, therefore, to be probable that Garnet 
entertained a sincere opinion that he ought not to 
reveal the facts which Greenway had stated to him, 
and which had been obtained from Catesby under the 
seal of confession, let us next consider whether this was 
really the only channel by which he had specific notice 
of the existence of the Plot; or whether he did not 
derive his knowledge of the design of the conspirators 
by means, and under circumstances, which he must 
* Epist. ad Front. Due., p. 109. 


288 


GARNET’S ADMISSIONS. 


have known left him at perfect liberty to disclose the 
secret if he had really wished to do so. 

In the first place, that Garnet had some general 
knowledge of the Plot from Catesby, which he thought 
himself criminal in not revealing to the government, 
and which could not, therefore, have been derived in 
confession, is quite evident from his own direct ad¬ 
missions. In his letter to the King,* on the 4th of 
April, he “ acknowledges himself to be highly guilty 
and to have offended God, as well as the King’s 
Majesty and the state, in not having revealed the 
general knowledge of Catesby’s intention which he 
had by him.” He makes the same admission in his 
last moments upon the scaffold, saying, “ that he had 
a general knowledge of the Plot by Catesby, and had 
sinned in not having revealed it, or taken means to 
prevent its execution.” It is clear, therefore, by these 
admissions, that he did know of the Plot generally by 
other means than confession ; and also that he obtained 
his knowledge in such a manner as left him at liberty 
to reveal it,—nay, in such a manner as not only 
justified him in revealing it, but made his conduct, 
in omitting to do so, “ highly guilty ” and offensive to 
God, even in his own estimation. The only reason 
he gives for not having disclosed his “ general know¬ 
ledge,” as he terms it, is that he concealed it “ partly 
upon hope of prevention, and partly because he would 
not betray his friends,” without at all alluding to any 
excuse on the ground of sacramental confession. The 

* Ante, p. 224. 


GARNET’S SHIFTING ANSWERS. 289 

reader may judge, after a due consideration of all the 
ascertained facts, how far it is probable that these 
could really be the motives of his silence. 

Again, much discredit is thrown upon Garnet's 
declaration, that the communication of the Plot was 
made to him under the seal of sacramental confession, 
by the inconsistency and vacillation of his own answers 
on the subject. In all his examinations previously to 
the trial he constantly asserts that Greenway told 
him the matter in confession. After the trial, on 
being falsely informed that Greenway was appre¬ 
hended, he perceives the danger of a discrepancy in 
their statements, and then relaxes the firmness of his 
previous assertions, saying, “ that he cannot certainly 
affirm that Greenway intended to relate the matter to 
him under the seal of confession; and it might be that 
such was not his intention, though he (Garnet) always 
supposed that it was.”* Being afterwards required 
to state plainly whether “he took Greenway’s dis¬ 
covery to be in confession or no?” He answered, 
“that it was not in confession, but by way of con¬ 
fession. Lastly, having declared that he conferred 
with Greenway frequently of the project, and asked 
him about it, “ as often as they met,” he was reminded 
that at all events, these latter conferences could not be 
in confession; upon which he endeavours to escape 

* Garnet’s Letter to the Fathers and Brethren on Palm-Simday; 
also his Letter to the King, April 6, 1606, as cited in Abbott's Anti- 
logia, p. 140. 

f Garnet’s Examination, April 25, 1606. State-Paper Office. 
Criminal Trials, vol. ii. p. 333. 


0 


290 


NATURE OF SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION. 


from the difficulty, by saying, “ that all these latter 
conferences had relation to the first, and consequently 
to confession.”* 

Here, then, are several different representations of 
a fact, which must have been known to himself with 
the utmost precision. At first “ he heard it in confes¬ 
sion;” then “ he supposed it to be in confession, but 
Greenway may not have so understood itafterwards 
“it was not in confession, but by way of confession;” 
and finally, “ it was told at various times, but always 
ivith relation to confession.” It seems impossible that 
there could be a shadow of doubt in Garnet's mind 
whether Greenway told him the matter in confession or 
not. Confession was a formal sacrament of their 
church, daily performed, and therefore perfectly 
understood by both of them, and it is quite incon¬ 
ceivable that they should have mistaken the trans¬ 
action, if anything of the kind had really taken place. 
Misunderstanding or mistake being therefore out of the 
question, the shifting and inconsistent statements of 
Garnet are only to be accounted for upon the sup¬ 
position that he was not relating the simple truth. 

Let us next consider how far it is ascertained by 
the undoubted facts of the transaction, that this com¬ 
munication to Garnet from Greenway or from Catesby 
was made under the seal of confession, in such a 
manner as to oblige him, in duty and conscience, to 
secrecy. According to the most rigid doctrines of the 
Jesuits respecting confession, it is quite clear that the 

* Abbott’s Autilogia, p. 140. 


GREENWAY’S CONFESSION NOT SACRAMENTAL. 291 


confession, in order to bind tlie lips of the priest, must 
be sacramental;—it must be a religious and spiritual 
ceremony, under the sanction of which the penitent 
confesses his sins, with a view to procure absolution for 
the benefit of his soul, without reference to worldly 
considerations. He must charge himself with some 
particular sins committed by him, for which he seeks 
to quiet his conscience, and for that purpose opens his 
mind to his spiritual adviser, in order to obtain recon¬ 
ciliation with God. In this manner he is considered 
to speak to God only; and what he says in this sacred 
confidence is not to be divulged to man. This is the 
principle of sacramental confession ; and it is in the case 
of such a confession alone that Roman Catholic theolo¬ 
gians declare the seal of secrecy to be inviolable, and the 
breach of it by the priest to be a crime.* Rut in the 
case of Greenway, who is represented by Garnet to have 
made this disclosure to him in confession, there was no 
self-accusation—no consciousness of sin—no penitence. 
Whatever may have been the case with Garnet, it is 
certain that Greenway neither disapproved nor dis¬ 
couraged this wicked enterprise. On the contrary, 
before it was discovered, he told Bates that “ it was a 
good cause, and no offence to conceal itand after the 
discovery, he rode up and down the country, from 

* “ Ut confessio pars est sacramenti, necessaria ad earn conditio 
est ut sit accusans, non quasi historiam aliquam aut fabulam narres , seel 
cum detestatione aliqud, teque profitearis reuin in illo foro esse.” 
Greg.de Valence, tom.iv.Disput. 7, Qufest. 11. “Nam sumit initium 
ex korrore turpitudinis peccati, et progreditur ad dolorem de com- 
misso peccato.” Thom. Aquinas, Supplement, 9 Art. 

o 2 


292 GREENWAY’S CONFESSION NOT SACRAMENTAL. ’ 

Coughton to Huddington, and from Huddington to 
Hendlip, and thence again into Lancashire, blowing the 
trumpet of rebellion, exciting the “ choleric,” cen¬ 
suring the “ phlegmatic,” and doing all he could to 
promote an insurrection of the Roman Catholics. 
Besides, all the circumstances of his communications 
with Garnet, upon this subject, were as unlike 
sacramental confession, or any other religious rite, as 
can be conceived. He made them, not kneeling in the 
usual manner of confession, but “ walking about.” 
Garnet “ asked him about the matter,” as often as they 
met,—sometimes inquiring how the Plot in general 
went on, and at other times, “ who was to be chosen 
Protector when the King and the Houses of Parliament 
were destroyed.”* All this was mere temporal con¬ 
versation and conference, not spiritual confession; and 
the Jesuit writers are unanimous, that though a priest 
may, in the first instance, have obtained his knowledge 
of criminal facts by confession, yet if he afterwards 
hears of them out of confession, from any quarter 
whatsoever, or even in ordinary conversation from the 
penitent himself, the seal of secrecy is removed, and he 
is at full liberty to disclose them. This doctrine is 
declared by Soto,f Delrius, and all the Roman Catholic 
theologians, contemporary with Garnet, as well as by 
Mediavilla and others of a more ancient date. Garnet 
could not have been ignorant of this doctrine. Brought 
up in the Jesuits’ College at Rome, familiar with the 

* Garnet’s Examination, April 25th, 1606.—State-Paper Office. 

f “ Do ratione tegendi et detegendi secretum.” 


DISCLOSURE SOMETIMES LAWFUL. 293 

works of tlie divines of his own religion, and himself 
the Superior of the Jesuits in England for twenty 
years, it is wholly incredible that he should not have 
known that, assuming the facts of Greenway’s com¬ 
munications with him to have been as described by 
himself, he was altogether absolved from the seal of 
confession, if it had ever applied. At all events, even 
if he had conceived that the point was not clearly 
ascertained—that it was vexata quoestio among divines 
of his own school, a truly religious and humane man, 
who really abhorred the design, would unquestionably 
have leaned to such an interpretation of a doubtful law 
as would have enabled him to prevent an act of such 
injustice and cruelty. 

Supposing, however, that Garnet really entertained 
scruples of conscience on the point, there was another 
mode by which, if he had sincerely wished to prevent 
the execution of the Plot, he might have done so 
without violating the confidence of the confessional. 
It is declared by the best Jesuit authorities in matters 
of doctrine, and is admitted by Bellarmine in a passage 
above cited, that in order to avoid an imminent danger, 
it is not only lawful for a confessor, but his bounden 
duty, if he take care not to bring the penitent into 
question, to adopt every precaution, and to use his 
utmost diligence to prevent the criminal intention 
revealed to him from being carried into execution. 
One authority says, that “ a priest in such circum¬ 
stances should signify to the person who is the object 
of the intended mischief, to be on his guard.” 


294 GARNET’S LETTER TO THE POPE. 

Another writer advises a confessor, “ when the danger 
disclosed to him threatens the state, to admonish those 
who are in authority to be cautious in a particular 
place and at a particular time.” A third says, “he 
ought to prevent the mischief to the utmost of his 
power; he * should incite the citizens to take care of 
their city, and do all he can to defeat the intended 
treason.” The illustrations given by these writers, 
though sufficiently vague and indefinite, all point 
to a doctrine, which is perfectly intelligible, namely, 
that it behoves a priest who hears of an intended crime 
in confession to use every means in his power, without 
discovering the individual, to prevent its actual com¬ 
mission. What then did Garnet do, in order to prevent 
the perpetration of a crime which he says he abhorred ? 
He asserts, indeed, that “ both he and Green way con¬ 
spired to hinder it; that he never allowed it, and 
sought to hinder it, more than men could imagine, as 
the Pope would tell.”* The only act which Garnet’s 
advocates pretend that he performed, in order to 
overthrow the conspiracy by the intervention of the 
Pope, was an alleged application to Rome for a pro¬ 
hibition of all tumults among Catholics under ecclesias¬ 
tical censures. But the nature and intention of this 
application to the Pontiff are ambiguous and suspicious. 
The letter containing it was addressed to Aquaviva, 
the Superior General of the Jesuits at Rome. It was 
first published in 1610 by Eudasmon-Joannes,f who 

'* Autograph letter to Anne Vaux, April 3rd, 1G06. 

f Apologia, p. 253. 


GARNET’S LETTER TO THE POPE. 295 

gives no account of the original or the mode in which 
he found it. In this letter, Garnet, after acknow¬ 
ledging the receipt of Aquaviva’s letters, which strongly 
exhorted him to restrain the English Roman Catholics 
from violent measures, proceeds thus :—“ I have myself 
already thrice prevented tumults; and I doubt not to 
stay all open preparations for violence, as I am satisfied 
that, without urgent necessity,few Catholics will attempt 
anything of this kind without my consent. There are, 
however, two things which keep me in great anxiety: 
the first is, a fear that individuals may take arms in 
some one province, and thus others may be compelled 
by necessity to follow the same course. For there are 
not a few who are not to be restrained by the mere 
command of his Holiness: they ventured to ask, while 
Pope Clement was alive, whether the Pope had power 
to restrict them from defending their lives; they say, 
moreover, that none of their elders are privy to their 
secret intentions, and even some of my own friends 
complain of me by name because I have placed a bar 
against the designs of such persons. In order to quiet 
them, and at least to gain time, so that by some delay 
a fitting remedy may be applied, I have exhorted 
them to agree to send an envoy to his Holiness. This 
has been done ; and I have directed him to the Nuncio 
in Flanders, to be accredited by him to the Pope, 
having also written letters by him, in which I have 
explained the opinions of the discontented, and the 
arguments used on both sides. These letters were 

o 

written very fully and in detail, as I know they will 


296 


GARNET’S LETTER TO THE POPE. 


be safely delivered. So much for the first danger; 
the second is somewhat worse, because it is a danger 
of some treason or violence privately offered to the 
King, by which all Catholics would be compelled to 
take arms. Wherefore, in my judgment, two things 
are necessary : first, that his Holiness should prescribe 
what shall be done in either case ; and secondly, that 
he should prohibit Catholics, under censures, from 
taking arms, and this by a breve publicly proclaimed, 
the opportunity for which might be given by the 
tumult lately raised in Wales, which has now fallen to 
nothing. It now only remains for me to beseech his 
Holiness (since things daily grow worse with us) to pro¬ 
vide as soon as possible some remedy for these dangers.” 

This letter* is dated July 24th, 1605; and, if 
Garnet’s own account is to be relied upon, it was 
written about the time that Greenway informed him 

* It has been strongly urged by Dr. Abbott that this letter is a 
forgery, or, at all events, that a false date has been assigned to it by 
Eudsemon-Joannes. This suggestion might be dismissed as a mere 
conjecture, unsupported by evidence, were it not for a suspicious 
anachronism which is to be found in the letter itself. The letter, 
which is dated July 24th, 1605, states, that Sir Edmund Baynliam 
had been at that time actually despatched to Flanders on his way to 
Rome; whereas it is clear, from all the evidence, and from Garnet’s 
statements in particular, that the proposal to send Baynliam was not 
made till some time afterwards, and that he did not leave England 
until the following September.—Garnet’s Confession, February 20th, 
1605-6, in Abbott’s Antilogia, p. 141. Besides, Fawkes gives a reason 
for the mission of Baynliam quite inconsistent with the date of the 
letter, namely, that he was sent to the Pope, “ to the end he might 
be there in readiness, and the Pope to be by him acquainted with 
the successes to be prepared for the relief of the Catholics, after the 
project of the powder had taken effect.”—Fawkes’s Examination 
January 9th, 1605-6. 


GARNET’S LETTER TO THE POPE. 297 

of the Powder Plot, the date of which communication 
he fixes to have been a few days before July 25 th.* 
Assuming his own account of dates, therefore, to be 
correct, and also assuming this letter to be genuine, we 
have here the communication made by him to the 
Superior of his order at the very point of time when 
the nature of the conspiracy had been first revealed to 
him. But the letter indicates none of that perturbation 
of mind which Garnet declared he felt upon his first 
acquaintance with the project; there is no urgency or 
earnestness in enforcing his application to the pontiff 
for the means of* staying the commission of an enormous 
crime, which, if perpetrated, must render the very 
name of Catholic execrable—no vivid representation of 
a horrible calamity, threatening the extirpation of the 
royal family, and the ruin of the kingdom, and which was 
only to be averted by the Pope’s interference—nothing, 
in short, is suggested which was likely to have the effect 
of inducing the Pope to interfere in the extraordinary 
manner which the letter affected to require. Whether, 
therefore, this letter was sincerely intended by Garnet 
to procure a total overthrow of the Plot by the Pope’s 
interference, or whether the object was to forward the 
determination which Fawkes declared-}* had been 
formed by the conspirators from the commencement— 
namely, the discouragement of all minor plots which 
might thwart the execution of the great design, must 

* Garnet’s Examination, March 12th, 1605.'—State-Paper Office. 

f Fawkes’s Examination, November 7th, 1605.— State-Paper 
Office. 

0 3 


298 RECOURSE TO ROME UNNECESSARY. 

be left to the judgment of the reader. At all events, it 
is certain either that the Pope never received the letter, 
or that he did not think the communication sufficiently 
urgent to induce him to interfere in the manner pro¬ 
posed. If it was a genuine letter, and actually re¬ 
ceived by the Pope, the requisition of a prohibition 
would not of course be granted before the arrival of 
Baynham with the fuller and more complete informa¬ 
tion announced by this communication ;—and Baynham 
was not despatched until September, when it was too 
late to render the Pope’s interference available for pre¬ 
venting the catastrophe. 

But the inquiry naturally suggests itself, why should 
Garnet, in a case of such urgency, have written to 
Pome at all for a prohibition ? He was himself Supe¬ 
rior of the Jesuits in England, and, as Lord Salisbury 
said, “ the pillar and oracle of their order.” By his 
own authority, especially armed, as he says he was, by 
the mandate of the Father-General, to forbid all risings 
among the Boman Catholics, he might have issued a 
command that all plots and designs against the King 
should be abandoned, which would have been respected 
and obeyed by all the English Roman Catholics, or at 
least by all attached to the Jesuit party. He had 
power to require a cessation of all such designs, under 
the severest penalties. The orders of the General were, 
by the express rules of the Society, to be respected as 
the injunctions of Christ himself, and the close subjec¬ 
tion of the subordinates to the superiors of the Jesuits 
in those times renders it morally certain that Garnet’s 


GARNET’S LETTER TO PARSONS. 


299 


mandate for the suppression of the Plot would have 
been religiously obeyed. There is, however, a piece of 
evidence in a letter of Digby to his wife, from the 
Tower, published in 1679, which clearly shows that, 
notwithstanding the general prohibition of the Pope, 
which Garnet says he so frequently objected to Catesby 
and others; he had no intention to prevent designs 
against the State, provided they were undertaken for 
the promotion of the Roman Catholic religion. Sir 
Everard Digby had scruples upon this very point, and 
hesitated to join in any insurrection in opposition to 
the declared wishes of the Pope. “ Before I knew 
anything of the Plot,” says he, “ I did ask Mr. Fanner 
(Garnet) what the meaning of the Pope’s brief was ; he 
told me that the priests were not to undertake or procure 
stirs; but yet they would not hinder any, neither was 
it the Pope’s mind they should, that should be under¬ 
taken for the Catholic good.”* 

There is another shaft, drawn likewise from the 
quiver of a friend, and aimed at a very different object, 
which falls most heavily against Garnet. An extract 
from a letter written by him to Father Parsons at Rome, 
on September 4th, 1605, immediately before the pil¬ 
grimage to St. Winifred’s Well, is published by Euclaa- 
mon-Joannes, for the purpose of showing that Garnet 
was not then acquainted with the Plot. Much of that 
writer’s apology for Garnet is founded upon the 

* Letters of Digby, at'the end of the “History of the Manner 
of the Discovery of the Gunpowder Plot,” p. 178. Edit. 1678. 
Farmer was one of the names used by Garnet, and by which he 

was indicted. 


300 


GARNET’S LETTER TO PARSONS. 


assumption that he was not informed by Greenway of 
the Plot until after the prorogation of Parliament from 
October 3rd to November 5th. In this he is supported 
by Greenway’s ‘ Narrative,’ and is followed, in modern 
tunes, by Dr. Lingard, who assigns so late a date to the 
communication as October 21st or 22nd, and builds much 
of his ingenious defence of Garnet upon this fallacy. 
Greenway must, in this instance, have stated what he 
knew to be false, with the intention of deceiving those 
who required. him to write his account of the trans¬ 
action ; and he made his statement in ignorance of the 
large admissions made by Garnet respecting his know¬ 
ledge of the Plot at an earlier period. Eudsemon- 
Joannes and Dr. Lingard were misled by Greenway, 
and also deceived by Garnet’s letter to Aquaviva above 
alluded to. The extract from Garnet’s letter to Parsons 
is as follows:—“ As far as I can now see, the minds of 
the Catholics are quieted, and they are determined to 
bear with patience the troubles of persecution for the 
time to come ; not indeed without hope that either the 
King himself, or at least his son, will grant some relief 
to their oppressions. In the mean time the number of 
Catholics is much increased ; and I hope that my present 
journey, which, God willing, I mean to commence to¬ 
morrow, will not be without good effect upon the Catholic 
cause.” EudEemon-Joannes could know nothing of 
what Garnet had confessed, excepting so much as 
appeared from the imperfect report of his trial; and 
to him the letter naturally appeared to prove the fact 
of Garnet s ignorance of the Plot at the time it was 


GARNET’S LETTER TO PARSONS. 


301 


written. But by those who know that, for many 
months before the date of this letter, Garnet was 
acquainted with the Plot by Greenway,*—that he was 
fully aware of the perseverance of the conspirators in 
their scheme, as he asked Greenway about it as often 
as he saw him,—that at the moment he wrote this 
letter he was on the point of starting upon a pilgrim¬ 
age with several of the sworn conspirators—this letter 
must be considered as supplying convincing and fatal 
evidence against Garnet. It shows to demonstration, 
that within a few weeks before the intended meeting of 
Parliament, when the blow was to be struck. Garnet was 
wilfully deceiving Parsons, and through him the Pope, 
as to the disposition of the English Roman Catholics; 
and that, so far from endeavouring to procure a prohi¬ 
bition from the Pope to prevent the execution of the 
Plot, he was persuading the authorities at Rome into a 
belief that all interference on their part had become 
unnecessary, and that all previous representations to 
the contrary (if such were ever made) were to be con¬ 
sidered as withdrawn. He might be bound, if his 
story were true, by a supposed religious duty not to 
reveal the particular project;—attachment to his friends 
and disciples might induce him to suppress the truth, 
and to forbear to mention their names or their particular 
treason even to Parsons or the Pope ; but no other motive 
than a desire to promote their purposes, by absolutely 
preventing any interference from Rome, could have led 

* See Garnet’s Confession, March 12th, 1G05-6.—State-Paper 
Office. Criminal Trials, vol. ii. p. 276. 


302 


GARNET’S CONDUCT 


him. thus to suggest a falsehood—“ to speak peace 
when there was no peaceto talk of the patience and 
quietness of the Roman Catholics, and of their hopes 
from the King and his son, when he knew that within 
two months from the date of his letter, a party among 
them, in the rage of despair, had determined to execute 
a scheme of most savage vengeance upon the King and 
the Protestant party. 

An excellent test of truth, which is frequently 
applied in the administration of justice, may be em¬ 
ployed with advantage upon this subject; namely, a 
comparison of the undoubted and indisputable facts and 
dates of the transaction with the account which the 
accused party gives of his own motives and conduct. 
“ It is a good safe rule,” says a profound master* of 
the science and practice of judicial evidence, “ in 
weighing evidence of a fact, which you cannot compare 
with other evidence of the same fact, to compare it 
with the actual conduct of the persons who describe it. 
If their conduct is clearly such as upon their own 
showing it would not have been, taking the fact in the 
way in which they have represented it, it is a pretty 
fair inference that the fact did not so happen. If their 
actings, at the very time the fact happens, represent it 
in one way and their relation of it represents it in 
another, why there can be no doubt which is the 
authentic narrative—which is the naked truth of the 
transaction.” It is obvious that this rule applies with 

* Lord Stowell. See bis judgment in the case of Evans v. Evans. 
Haggard’s Consistoiy Reports, vol. i. p. 41. 



INCONSISTENT WITH HIS DEFENCE. 303 

precisely the same force to a comparison of the repre¬ 
sentations of one person with the actions of others, or 
with the acknowledged circumstances of a transaction 
to which the representations relate. For instance, where 
an individual states that he did certain acts in con¬ 
junction with other persons, or gave them certain 
advice—if it can be shown satisfactorily that the conduct 
of those persons has not been such as it must neces¬ 
sarily have been, or that the other circumstances of the 
transaction have not occurred as they must have occurred 
if those acts had really been done, or that advice had in 
fact been given, it is a reasonable conclusion that the 
statements made are False. And surely if this compari¬ 
son of statement with conduct is a valuable means of es¬ 
timating testimony in judicial investigations at the pre¬ 
sent day, when there is usually a fair presumption that 
a witness is speaking the truth, it must be doubly valu¬ 
able when applied to the statements of those who not 
only practised, but avowed and justified, as a laudable 
and moral principle, equivocation, evasion, falsehood, and 
even perjury to God, when committed by an individual 
in order to defeat a criminal charge made against him. 

Let us then apply this rule to the statements of 
Garnet and his own conduct, and also that of others to 
whom those statements refer. He asserts that he knew 
nothing of the Plot until he heard it from Green way in 
confession, in July, 1605—that he always abhorred the 
project—that he thought it “ altogether unlawful and 
most horrible”'*—that from the time it was imparted to 
# Garnet’s Letter to the King, April 4th, ante , p. 242. 


304 


CONDUCT OF GARNET 


him he could not sleep quietly—that he prayed to God 
that it might not take effect—that he commanded Green¬ 
way to put an end to it*—that he and Greenway con¬ 
spired to prevent it,t and that he did all that he could 
to dissuade the conspirators from their purpose. This is 
Garnet’s case, stated by himself, and in his own lan¬ 
guage. Let us now consider his conduct, and the 
ascertained facts of the transaction, and see how far 
they are consistent with these propositions. Garnet 
was the friend of Catesby, Thomas Winter, and 
Greenway. He had avowedly participated with them 
in two previous capital treasons, one immediately 
before, the other immediately after, the death of Queen 
Elizabeth, which he himself considered so serious that 
he thought it necessary to shelter himself from punish¬ 
ment by a pardon. He had kept the Pope’s breves 
against a Protestant succession for several years, and 
had repeatedly shown them to Catesby and Winter, the 
former of whom constantly referred to these breves as 
justifying his scheme. Of Catesby, the contriver of 
this Plot, he was the peculiar and intimate adviser and 
associate. At White Webbs,—at Erith,—at his lodg¬ 
ing in Thames-street,—at Fremlands,—in Moorfields, 
—and at Goathurst,—from the time of the King’s 
accession until within a fortnight of the 5th of Novem¬ 
ber,—Catesby and Garnet are found in constant and 
confidential communication. Catesby informs him re¬ 
peatedly in general terms that he had a treason in 

* See Criminal Trials, vol. ii. p. 294. 

f Letter to Anne Vaux, April 3rd, 1606.—State-Paper Office. 


INCONSISTENT WITH HIS DEFENCE. 


305 


hand; and yet, according to Garnet, he who had been 
his accomplice in two previous treasons, does not 
choose to trust him with the particulars of the third— 
passes by his friend, the Superior of the Jesuits, and 
confesses his design to Greenway, a subordinate priest. 
This strange reserve could not proceed from any ap¬ 
prehension on the part of Catesby that Garnet, if in¬ 
formed of the scheme, would condemn it as unlawful 
and forbid its prosecution. Catesby had all along no 
doubt about its lawfulness. He believed and declared 
that God had designed this mode of punishment for 
the enemies of the true religion ; and the promotion of 
the true religion being the object of the scheme, he was 
satisfied that neither Garnet nor any other religious man 
could oppose it. He told Garnet that the Pope himself 
could not but approve it. In truth, no cause ever has or 
ever can be assigned for this improbable and unnatural 
silence. It is as inconsistent with the character and 
relative position of the parties as it is contrary to the 
common motives which actuate the conduct of mankind. 

Again, Garnet says* that about Midsummer, 1604, 
Catesby or Winter “ insinuated” to him that there was 
a plot in hand for the Catholic cause against the King 
and State. He knew, therefore, at that time, that a 
treason was in existence, the object of which was the 
promotion of the religion of which in England he was 
the head and chief; and he continues from time to 
time to hear of it, from Greenway, Catesby, and Winter, 

* Garnet’s Examinations, March 13th and 14th, 1G05-6. Criminal 
Trials, vol. ii. p. 276. 


CONDUCT OF GARNET 


303 

for a twelvemonth afterwards. All this time, however, 
he denies that he knew any particulars, which in itself 
is sufficiently strange, considering his character and 
office, and considering who were the promoters of the 
treason, and what was their avowed object. In June, 
1605, Catesby proposes to him the question about 
“ killing nocents and innocents,” which has been often 
before mentioned. One month afterwards, namely, in 
July, 1605, Green way, according to Garnet’s account, 
unfolds the whole scheme of the plot to him, at which 
communication he says he was struck with horror and 
grief, and immediately set himself to work to prevent 
the execution of the project. At this point of time, 
then, at least, when Greenway made his communication, 
the meaning of Catesby’s inquiry, about “ noccnts and 
innocents,” which at first Garnet says he thought an 
idle question,* as well as the nature of the Plot “ in¬ 
sinuated ” by Catesby or Winter a year before, must 
have flashed upon his mind. Did his conscience, which 
became so uneasy upon this discovery that he could not 
sleep, prompt him to tell Catesby, that he now per¬ 
ceived his intention in the insidious question he had 
propounded—that he now detected the scheme he had 
in hand ? Did he then denounce the project to him in 
the epithets he afterwards applied to it, as being 
“altogether unlawful and most horrible?” Did he call 
upon him, by his promised obedience to himself and 
the rules of the order, to abandon this ferocious enter¬ 
prise, disgraceful to humanity, and an everlasting 
* See Criminal Trials, vol. ii. p. 292. 


INCONSISTENT WITH HIS DEFENCE. 307 

reproach to his religion? He says “he could not do 
this, because it was matter of secret confession.” For 
the reasons above given, it may be doubted whether 
Garnet really believed himself bound by the sacrament 
of confession;—but, admitting that he thought so, it 
was in his power to relieve himself entirely from this 
obligation. Catesby, having obtained leave from the 
other conspirators to do so, offered to inform him in 
particular what attempt he had in hand, which Garnet 
refused to hear. Why did he refuse to hear him? 
His mind was so disquieted with the story which 
Greenway had told him, that he could not sleep. He 
earnestly desired—he prayed to God that the project 
might be prevented; his own tongue, which, if at 
liberty, might instantly destroy the scheme, was bound 
by a religious sacrament. An opportunity is offered of 
releasing him from this solemn obligation, and of 
leaving him altogether free to follow the dictates of 
humanity and the suggestions of his conscience. This 
opportunity he rejects, and the reason he gives to Lord 
Salisbury for not hearing Catesby when he frankly 
offered to tell the whole story is, that “ his soul was 
so troubled with mislike of that particular, that he was 
loath to hear any more of it.’* How it is plainly 
impossible that these facts could have existed, as Garnet 
relates them; for it is beyond all belief that his conduct 
could have been as it actually was, if his motives and 
intentions had been as he represents them. A person 
troubled in spirit by the possession of a frightful secret, 
* See Criminal Trials, vol. ii. p. 294. 


308 


GARNET’S JOURNEY TO COUGHTON. 


Journey to 
Cougliton. 


* 


—painfully anxious to avert an impending calamity by 
disclosing it, but compelled to silence by a religious 
obligation,—would have eagerly embraced the oppor¬ 
tunity of deliverance afforded by Catesby’s offer. 
Garnet, on the contrary, refuses it, and gives a 
frivolous and absurd reason for so doing. His refusal to 
hear Catesby, under these circumstances, was altogether 
repugnant to the universal motives which govern the 
actions of men;—he gives no sufficient reason for so 
inconsistent an action; and therefore, upon the funda¬ 
mental rules of historical evidence, the whole story 
must be rejected as incredible. 

Garnet’s journey to Cougliton, only six days before 
the 5th of November, was a circumstance in his conduct 
which was repeatedly mentioned by himself’ with ap¬ 
prehension, as the most liable to suspicion and most 
difficult to answer, and which is wholly irreconcileable 
with the motives and intentions which he professed to 
entertain respecting the Plot. “ There is,’’ says Garnet 
to Hall, in one of their interlocutions in the Tower, # 
“ one special thing of which I doubted they would 
have taken an exact account of me, to wit, of the 
causes of my coming to Coughton, which indeed would 
have bred a great suspicion of the matter.” “ Indeed,” 
he says in a subsequent interlocution, “ I was pressed 
again with Coughton, which I most feared; questioning 
with me of my times of coming thither, the place, at 
such a time, and the company.” To Anne Yaux he 
says: “ The time of my coming to Coughton is a great 
* See Appendix, No. II. p. 336. 


JOURNEY TO COUGHTON. 


309 


presumption ; but all Catholics know it was a necessity.” 
What the “ necessity ” was to which he alludes in his 
letter to Anne Yaux is not apparent; and that it was 
not understood by “ all Catholics ” at that time, appears 
probable from the total absence of any explanation of it 
by Bellarmine, Eudgemon Joannes, or any other of 
Garnet’s apologists. It is, indeed, impossible to dis¬ 
cover among the facts of this transaction, any explana¬ 
tion of this journey to Coughton consistent with Garnet’s 
innocence of the Powder Plot. A fortnight before the 
5 th of* November, he is found with Catesby and several 
Jesuits, at Sir Everard Digby’s house at Goathurst, in 
Buckinghamshire. # At this place they separate; 
Catesby going straightway to London to execute the 
bloody project; and Garnet, with Mrs. Vaux, and Sir 
Everard and Lady Digby, travelling to Coughton, the 
centre of the rendezvous, the place actually hired for 
the purpose of the conspiracy, and from whence Digby 
is to proceed four days afterwards to the pretended 
hunting at Dunchurch. The journey from Goathurst 
to Coughton took place on the 29th of October, t At 
that moment the preparations of the incendiaries were 
complete. The powder and combustibles were in the 
cellar. The hand was raised and ready “ that should 
have acted that monstrous tragedy.” Within one week 
the Parliament would meet, and the catastrophe would 
take place. Garnet was perfectly informed of all this 

* See Garnet’s Examination, March 6th, 1605-6.—State-Paper 
Office. 

f See Handy’s Examination, November 27th, 1605.—State-Paper 
Office. 


310 


JOURNEY TO COUGHTON. 


—the man who abhorred the Plot—who, for months 
before, could not sleep by reason of his alarm—who 
prayed to God, and did all he could, to prevent the 
execution of the project,—suffers Catesby to depart to 
the scene of destruction without even a remonstrance, 
and he himself quietly travels with a principal con¬ 
spirator to a place hired by that conspirator expressly 
with a view to the intended operations of the insurgents. 
There the insurgents seek him, and thither Catesby 
sends to announce to him the failure of the enterprise. 
Let us now consider for a moment whether this would 
or could have been the conduct of a person who really 
felt, thought, and intended, as Garnet declares he did. 
In the first place, would he have suffered Catesby 
to leave Goathurst on his bloody expedition without 
remonstrance or warning? Would he, under such 
circumstances, have removed himself to a greater dis¬ 
tance from London ? On the contrary, would not his 
anxiety have forced him to the scene of immediate 
action, to take the chance at least of finding some 
means of averting the blow he so much dreaded ? If 
this was hopeless, would he not at all events have 
fled to the remotest corner of the land, instead of in¬ 
curring the suspicions which must necessarily rest 
upon him if he sought the rendezvous of these men 
of blood ? 

Garnet, indeed, says on his trial, that “he went 
into Warwickshire with a purpose to dissuade Mr. 
Catesby when he should have come down;” and “that 
if he had come to him upon Allhallows-day, he thought 


JOURNEY TO COUGHTON. 


311 


lie could so far have ruled Kim as he would have been 
persuaded to desist.”* But Garnet well knew that 
Catesby was not to come down till the catastrophe was 
over,—till the “ nocents” and “ innocents” had been 
indiscriminately destroyed. He was to proclaim the 
heir apparent at Charing Cross—to organise the pro¬ 
visional government in London—to choose a protector 
—and then, and not till then, to join the rendezvous 
in Warwickshire. Garnet had, therefore, not the 
shadow of a reason to expect him at Coughton upon 
Allhallows-day. Besides, why should he delay his 
persuasion until the eve of the completion of the design ? 
Why suspend the fate of the nation upon a single 
slender thread, and leave to the chance of seeing 
Catesby the prevention of so horrible a massacre ? If, 
indeed, he had not been acquainted with the Plot till 
a few days before the 5th of November, his alarm and 
perturbation of mind might, in some measure, have 
accounted for his conduct; though even upon that 
supposition his behaviour would have been most extra¬ 
ordinary and unnatural. But by his own confession, 
he had known it for many months, and there is strong 
presumptive evidence that he had known it for a much 
longer time than he chose to admit;—-he had talked 
with Greenway about it whenever he met him ;—he 
had seen Catesby repeatedly, and in particular had 
been with him at Goathurst a fortnight before the 
appointed day. Why did he not persuade him then ? 
The seal of confession, if that had really been the 
* See Criminal Trials, vol. ii. pp. 294, 303. 


312 


JOURNEY TO COUGHTON. 


reason of liis silence, was surely as inviolable on 
Allhallows-day as it had been a fortnight before. 

The circumstance that Greenway was at Coughton 
likewise tends to show the object of Garnet’s journey. 
What could be Green way’s motive for repairing to the 
rendezvous? Not certainly to discourage a design 
which both before and after its failure he applauded 
and approved. Is it then probable that these two 
priests should, at this critical juncture, be found 
exactly at this spot, if their views, intentions, and 
wishes respecting what was going on in London had 
been so diametrically opposite as Garnet pretends ? 

The same striking inconsistency between Garnet’s 
actions and professions is displayed by his conduct 
while at Coughton. On Allhallows-day, Hall expressly 
says* that Garnet, “ in a private manner, incited those 
that were present to pray at that time to be rid of 
heresy: and said a verse or two of a hymn for that 
day— 

‘ Gentem auferte perfidam 
Credentium de finibus; 

Ut Christo laudes debitas 
Persolvainus alacriter.’ ” 

William Handy also, a servant of Sir Everard Digby’s, 
declares,! that two days before the meeting at Dun- 
church, Garnet said, in his hearing, at Coughton, “ It 
were good that the Catholics, at the beginning of the 
Parliament, should pray for some good success towards 

* Hall’s Examination, March 6th, 1605-6. Criminal Trials, vol 
ii. p. 285. 

f Handy’s Examination, November 27th, 1605.—State-Paper 
Office. 


HIS PRAYER AT COUGHTON. 


313 


the Catholic cause.” Of the truth of these statements 
there can be no doubt, as the substance of them is 
admitted by Garnet himself. Now, can it he believed 
that an incitement to pray for the extirpation of heresy, 
made in a significant and unusual manner, at the very 
moment when that object was in the act of being 
attempted by the violent destruction of the heads arid 
leaders of the Protestant party, was likely to proceed 
from one who abhorred tire scheme ? So also his recom¬ 
mendation to pray for success to the Roman Catholic 
cause at the beginning of the Parliament is wholly un¬ 
intelligible in the mouth of a man who cordially disap¬ 
proved a plan for promoting the Roman Catholic religion 
which he knew to be then on the point of execution. 
Upon this subject Garnet himself says, in his first inter¬ 
locution with Hall,* “ Perhaps they will press me with 
certain prayers that I made against the time of the 
Parliament for the good success of that business, which 
indeed is true.” “ But,” he adds, “ I may answer 
that well; for I will say it is true that I did doubt 
that at this next Parliament there would be more 
severe laws made against the Catholics, and therefore I 
made those prayers; and that will answer it well 
enough.” The reader, who considers the evidence in 
this case, will perhaps hesitate in coming to the same 
conclusion; and will probably think that the facts of 
his praying at this precise point of time, and with his 
knowledge of what was then on the eve of execution, 
“to be rid of heresy,” for the “ taking off a perfidious 

* Appendix, No. II. p. 332. 

P 


314 


GARNET’S COMMAND TO GREENWAY. 


people,” and “ for some good success towards the 
Catholic cause,” are not “well enough answered” by 
his suggestion that he alluded in such prayers to the 
threatened imposition of further persecuting laws at 
the ensuing Parliament. The language of the prayers 
is precisely adapted for the furtherance of the Plot; it 
is quite inconsistent with the intention ascribed to it 
by Garnet. 

One more instance deserves to be mentioned, in 
which Garnet’s statements appear to be signally re¬ 
futed by acknowledged facts. Garnet declares that 
“ he commanded Green way to dissuade Catesby,” and 
that “ Greenway said he would do his best to make 
them desist.”* The calm and temperate manner in 
which this is represented to have been done cannot fail 
to astonish the reader, when he considers the fearful 
extent and murderous cruelty of the scheme to which 
the command of Garnet referred. The lanouage is 

O O 

precisely that which might have been employed to dis¬ 
courage one of the most insignificant actions of Cates¬ 
by’s daily life, but is surely not such as would have 
been used to prevent the execution of a design to mur¬ 
der hundreds at a single blow. But looking to Green- 
way’s conduct, it is wholly incredible either that Gar¬ 
net gave him such a command, or that Greenway 
promised to urge the conspirators to desist, or that he 
did in fact do so. Of Greenway’s conduct before the 
5th of November, we find few particulars recorded 
except in Bates’s evidence: it is clear, however, that 
* See Criminal Trials, vol. ii. pp. 294, 302. 


GREEXWAY’S CONDUCT. 


315 


lie was in constant communication with the conspira¬ 
tors ; and there is no evidence, nor any suggestion, 
except in his own exculpatory narrative, that he ever 
in any degree discouraged the conspiracy. On the 
contrary, he is found at the rendezvous on the day of 
the meeting of Parliament. On hearing by Bates, after 
Fawkes’s apprehension, that the conspirators are in 
open rebellion, he instantly goes to join them at 
Huddington. Catesby and Percy receive him at that 
place with open arms as an associate and ally, the 
former exclaiming upon his appearance, “ Here is a 
gentleman that will live and die with us !”* After 
consulting with the arch-traitors for two hours,. he 
rides away to Mr. Abington, at Hendlip, and tells 
him and his family, that unless “ they presently join 
the rebels, all their throats will be cut;” and, upon 
Mr. Abington’s refusal to do so, he rebukes him as 
a phlegmatic” person, and says he shall go else¬ 
where, and especially into Lancashire, for the same 
purpose for which he had come to Hendlip. f Here 
then eve find the man whom Garnet says he com¬ 
manded to dissuade the conspirators intimately allied 
with them for months before the discovery of the 
treason, and yet doing nothing, and attempting nothing, 
in performance of the supposed command of his 
superior; nay, upon their breaking out into actual 

* Henry Morgan’s Examination, January 10th, 1G05-6.—State- 
Paper Office. 

f Examination of Hall, March 6th, 1605-6.—State-Paper Office. 
Criminal Trials, vol. ii. p. 285. 

P 2 


316 


FAWKES’S MISSION TO FLANDERS. 


Mission of 
Fawkes to 
Flanders. 


rebellion, he even joins them, rides to and fro in the 
country to excite Papists to arm in their support, and 
acts in every respect as a zealous promoter of their 
design. Can it be believed that Greenway, a subordi¬ 
nate priest, would have dared thus to disobey the 
positive command of his superior, if such a command 
had really been issued ? Is it credible that Greenway, 
who had confessed the plot to Garnet, and received 
absolution on the express condition of his promise 
to dissuade others from this great sin, should have 
not only omitted to do so, but have done all in his 
power to assist and encourage the traitors to promote 
the treason ? 

The facts of Garnet’s implication in the mission of 
Fawkes into Flanders, and, subsequently, with that of 
Baynham to the Pope, must also be taken into the 
account among the circumstances which press most 
heavily against him. Fawkes was sent into Flanders 
by the conspirators about Easter, 1605. The chief 
object of his mission is stated by both himself and 
Thomas Winter to have been to acquaint Hugh Owen 
and Sir William Stanley with the particulars of the 
Plot,* or, as Catesby informed Piobert Winter, “to see 
if he could raise friends, f Fawkes was also charged 
by Catesby to procure Owen and Father Baldwin the 
Jesuit to deal with the Marquis Spinola in Flanders to 
make him lieutenant of a regiment of horse there, “ by 


* History of the Gunpowder Plot, pp. 42 and 56. 
t Robert inters Letter to the Lords, January 21st, 1G05-G 
Criminal Trials, vol. ii. p. 143. 


FAWKES’S MISSION TO FLANDERS. 


317 


colour whereof he might provide horses in England 
against the powder-blast should have been given.”* 
The object of Fawkes’s mission being, therefore, alto¬ 
gether the furtherance of the Plot, Garnet “ writes by 
him to Father Baldwin in his commendation.”! He 
says on the trial that he did so, “ thinking that Fawkes 
went to serve as a soldier.” It is hardly credible that 
Fawkes, who was well known as a soldier in the 
Archduke’s camp, having served in Flanders during 
several campaigns, would require a military recom¬ 
mendation at all; or if he did, that such an object 
would be forwarded by a letter from a priest in 
England to a priest in Flanders. But, at all events, 
it could not be necessary to give a special recom¬ 
mendation of Fawkes to Baldwin, as they were al¬ 
ready intimately acquainted, and had been connected 
in treasonable enterprises at an earlier period. It 
was Baldwin, who, with Sir AVilliam Stanley and 
Owen, “ employed Fawkes from Brussels into Spain,” 
immediately after James’s accession, to “ give advertise¬ 
ment to the King of Spain how the King of England 
was like to proceed rigorously with Catholics, and that 
it would please him to bring an army to Milford 
Haven and it was Baldwin who explained to Fawkes 
particularly how he was to negotiate with Cresswell to 
procure the invasion.^ For introduction and connnen- 

* Fawkes’s Examination, January 20th, 1605-6. Criminal Trials, 
vol. ii. p. 280. 

f Garnet’s Confession, March 6th, 1605-6. Criminal Trials, vol. ii. 
p. 278. 

J See Criminal Trials, vol. ii. p. 140. 


Mission of 
Huynh am to 
Home. 


I 


318 MISSION OF BAYNHAM TO ROME. 

dation, therefore, Garnet’s letters to Baldwin were at 
this time quite unnecessary; but, on the other hand, it 
was of the utmost importance to the conspirator^ to 
have Fawkes accredited to Baldwin by Garnet’s au¬ 
thority, with respect to the real object of his mission, 
which was to communicate the Plot and secure his 
active co-operation. 

The circumstance of Garnet’s writing to Flanders in 
recommendation of Sir Edmund Baynham must be 
considered as an extremely suspicious fact. The object 
of Baynham’s mission to Rome was, as Fawkes says,* 
“ that he might be there in readiness to acquaint the 
Pope with the successes to be prepared for the relief of 
the Catholics, after the project of the powder had 
taken effectand the time of his departure, namely, 
the month of September, entirely coincides with this 
object. Under these circumstances, Garnet accredits 
Baynham by letters to the Pope’s Nuncio in Flanders, 
and these letters are considered by the conspirators to 
be of such vital importance, that Bates declares that 
Baynham was at this critical moment stayed in 
England, expressly waiting until they should be ready. 
The reasons given by Garnet himself for this suspicious 
recommendation are various and inconsistent. In one 
of his earlier examinations,! and before he had ac¬ 
knowledged his own privity to the Plot, he says, 
“ that the effect of his letter to Baldwin on behalf of 

* Examination, January 9th, 1605-6. Criminal Trials, vol. ii 
p. 271. 

f Examination, March 6th, 1605-6. State-Paper Office. 


MISSION OF BAYNHAM TO ROME. 319 

Baynham was to commend him to be a soldier,” and he 
protests that he never wrote to any other effect. A 
few days afterwards * he says that he named Baynham 
to Catesby as a fit messenger to be sent to the Pope, to 
acquaint him generally with the state of England, and 
to take his advice and direction before the Powder 
Plot was proceeded in. On his trial he is represented 
as combining both these accounts; asserting that “ he 
always understood that Baynham went as a soldier, and 
that he thought good to commend him to the Pope’s 
Nuncio and other friends in Flanders, that they should 
send him to the Pope to inform him of the distressed 
state of the Catholics in England, and to learn of the 
Pope what course he would advise them to take for 
their own good.” And, finally, after his trial, in his 
letter to the fathers and brethren on Palm-Sunday,t he 
declares, “ that he had procured Baynham’s mission in 
order to inform the Pope generally of the Plot, and 
that this was the reason why he so confidently ex¬ 
pected from his Holiness a prohibition of the whole 
business.” Now, with respect to his recommendation 
of Baynham as a soldier, we are first struck with a 
similar absurdity to that above pointed out in relation 
to Fawkes, namely, that the Superior of the Jesuits 
should recommend a military man to the Pope’s Nuncio. 
Besides which, it must be remembered that Baynham 

* Examination, March 12th, 1605-G. Criminal Trials, vol. ii. 
p. 272. 

f Antilogia, p. 141. 


320 MISSION OF BAYNHAM TO HOME. 

could have required no such introduction. He had 
served under the Earl of Essex on various occasions, 
and was intimately acquainted with Sir William 
Stanley and the other English refugees of the Roman 
Catholic party in Flanders. But, taking the latest and 
final reason alleged by Garnet, namely, that he pro¬ 
posed his mission to the Pope in order to negotiate for 
the prevention of the Plot by a papal prohibition, is it 
credible that for such a purpose he would have em¬ 
ployed such a messenger ? Could the Superior of the 
Jesuits find no more fitting emissary on a message 
of mercy than the 44 Captain of the Damned Crew,” 
—the man of 44 treasons, stratagems, and spoils,” 
—whose turbulent and unprincipled character was so 
notorious in England, that the conspirators themselves 
thought it imprudent to intrust him with any part of 
the conduct of the project at home, saying, that 44 he 
was not fit for the business?”* But the conclusive 
answer given to this suggestion at the trial, and by 
which its falsehood seerfts to be demonstrated, was the 
indisputable fact that Baynham did not quit England 
until the middle of September, and consequently that 
it was barely possible, even if he had travelled directly 
to Rome with the utmost expedition, to have procured 
the Pope’s prohibition, and to have returned with it to 
England, before November 5th. In fact, Baynham 
used no expedition at all; he went through Flanders 
and remained some days there, and did not reach 

* Bates’s Examination, Jan. 13,1605-6. Criminal Trials, vol. ii. p. 282. 


GARNET A PARTY TO THE PLOT. 


321 


Florence till October 20th, well knowing that the real 
object of his mission would, be accomplished by his 
being at Rome as soon as the tidings of the explosion 
had arrived there. 

Many other circumstances might be mentioned, all 
of which point directly to a different conclusion from 
that which Garnet laboured to establish on the trial, and 
which his apologists, with greater zeal and ingenuity than 
knowledge of the facts, have since urged on his behalf*. 
But the enumeration of all the arguments would extend 
these remarks, already perhaps too much protracted, to a 
length of* dissertation altogether unjustifiable. There 
was great justice in what Lord Salisbury quaintly said 
to Garnet upon the trial, namely, that “ all his defence 
was but simple negation; whereas, his privity and 
activity, laid together, proved him manifestly guilty.” 
It is impossible to point out a single ascertained fact, 
either declared by him in his examinations to the 
Commissioners, or to the jury on his trial, or revealed 
by him afterwards, or urged by his apologists since his 
death, which is inconsistent with his criminal implica¬ 
tion in the Plot. On the other hand, all the esta¬ 
blished and undisputed facts of the transaction are con¬ 
sistent with his being a willing, consenting, and ap¬ 
proving confederate, and many of them are wholly 
unaccounted for by any other supposition. Indeed, 
this conclusion appears to be so inevitable, upon a 
deliberate review of the details of the conspiracy and 
of the power and influence of the Jesuits at that 


322 GARNET A PARTY TO THE PLOT. 

period, that the doubt and discussion which have 
occasionally prevailed during two centuries respecting 
it can only have arisen from the imperfect publication 
of the facts, and, above all, from the circumstance that 
the subject has usually been treated in the spirit of 
political or religious controversy, and not as a question 
of mere historical criticism. 


( 323 ) 


Appendix No. I. 


Jhesus Maria. 


Shrovetuesday. 

For Mrs. Anne or 
one of ours first 
keep all discreetly 
secret. 

I purpose, by God’s grace, to sett downe here briefly, 
what hath passed since my apprehension, least evill reports, 
or untrew, may do myself or others injury. 

After we had bene in the hoale 7 dayes and 7 nights, and 
some odd houres, every man may well think we were well 
wearyed; and indeed so it was, for we continually satte, 
save that some times we could half stretch ourselves, the 
place being not high enough; and we had our Iegges so 
straightened, that we could not sitting find place for them ; 
so that we both were in continuall paine of our Iegges, and 
both our Iegges, especially mine, were much swollen, and 
mine continued so till I came to the Tower. If we had had 
but one half day liberty to come forth, we had so eased the 
place from bookes and furniture, that, having with us a 
cloase stoole, we could have abidden a quarter of a yeare. 
For that all my frendes will wonder at, especially in me, 
that neither of us went to the stoole all the while, though 
we had means to “ servitii piccoli,” whereof also we were at 
a nonplus the day of our taking. 

We w r ere very merry and content within, and heard the 
searchers every day most curious over us, which made me 
in deed think the place would be found. And if I had 



324 


APPENDIX No. I. 


knowne in time of the proclamation against me, I would 
have come forth and offred myself to Mr. Abington, whether 
he would or no, to have bene his prisoner. 

When we came forth we appeared like l A ghosts ; yet I 
the stronger, though my weakness lasted longest. The 
fellow that found us ranne away for feare, thinking we 
would have shotte a pistoll at him; but there came need- 
lesse company to assist him, and we bad them be quiett, 
and we would come forth. So they holpe us out very 
charitably ; and we could not go ; but desyred to be lead to 
a house of office. So 1 was, and found a bord taken up, 
where there was a great downfall, that one should have 
broaken his neck if he had come thither in the dark, which 
seemed intended of purpose. We had escaped, if the two 
first hidden souldiers had not come out so soone, for when 
they had found them they were curious to find their place. 

The search at Henlip was not for me but for Mr. Hall, as 
an abettor of Kobert Winter. Then came a second charge 
to search for Mr. Gerard. Of me never no expectation ;—so 
that it was onely God’s pleasure to have it so as it is. Fiat 
vo'uvtas eyas. 

Sir Henry by the proclamation knew me straight, and 
made of me exceedingly, saying I was a lerned man and a 
worthy, &c. I acknowledged not my name ; but referred all 
to my meeting with my Lord of Salisbury, who would know 
me. Yet never did I deny my name to Sir Henry, but 
desyred him to call me as he would ; for he called me by 
divers names, but my most common was Garnett. I tould 
him that in truth it was not for any discourtesy, but that 
I would not in the places we are be made an obloquy, 
but when I came to London, I would not be asshamed of my 
name. 

We were carried to Worcester in his coach, where he 
had promised us to place us in some bailye’s, or other 
citizen’s house ; but when we came there he sayed he could 
not do as he wisshed, but must send us to the gaole. I 
said, “ A-God’s name, but I hope you will provide we have 
not irons, for we are lame already, and shall not be able to 
ride after to London.” “Well,” said he, “ I will think of 
it, and set me to rest in a private chamber, with one to 
looke to me, because he would avoide the people’s gazing. 


APPENDIX No. I. 


325 


When he had dispached his busines he sent for me, and 
tould me we should go with him to his house. So we did in 
coach, and were exceedingly well used, and dined and 
supped with him and his every day. 

On Candlemas Day he made a great dinner to end Christ¬ 
mas ; and in the middest of diner he sent for wine to drink 
health to the King, and we all were bare. There came, 
accompayning the wine, a white waxe candell lighted, taken 
at Henlip, with Jesus on one side and Maria on another. 
So I desyred to see the candell, and tooke it in my handes, 
and gave it to Mr. Hall, and said I was glad yet that I 
had caried a holy candel on Candelmas Day. So I pledged 
the health, yet with favour, as they said, in a reasonable 
glasse. 

I parted from the gentilwemen, who were very kind to 
me, as also all the house, who were with us continually, 
insomuch that Sir Henry was afraid we would pervert them. 
And the like caveat he hath given to my keeper here, whom 
I have sent to him sometimes. 

I desyred them all to think well of me, till they saw 
whether I could justify myself in this cause. 

All the way to London I was passing well used at the 
King’s charge, ami that by expresse orders from Lord Salis¬ 
bury. 

I had alwayes the best horse in the company. Yet was I 
much distempered the first and last night; which last night 
I was lodged in the Gate-house, and could not eate any 
thing, but went supperless to bedd ; and all the while there 
could eate very little, onely contenting myself with bread, 
an appell, and some wine, according to my purse ; though 
my keepers drank also with me, I thinking to have re¬ 
mained still there: but I am far better here than close 
there, if I could have my morning delights, which there 
cannot be had neither. 

I had some bickering with ministers by the way. Two 
very good scholars and courteous, Mr. Abbott and Mr. 
Barlow, mett us at an inne ; but 2 other rude fellows 
mette us on the way, whose discourtesy I rewarded with 
plaine wordes, and so adieu. They were discharged by 
authority. 

On St. Valentine’s Eve I went to the Councell Table at 


32 G 


APPENDIX No. I. 


White Hall, a great multitude behoulding both going and 
coming. One said, “ there was a Provinciallanother, 
“ there goetJi a young Pope.” When I came to the Councell 
1 kneeled, and was bid stand. And I asked whether my 
letter had bene seene ? All denyed it. So I made my trew 
protestation of innocency in this case. They wisshed I 
would no so crnestly protest, for they had sure proofes. 
So my Lord of Salisbury first began ; and his interrogations 
and my answers with some intermingled disputations, espe¬ 
cially of equivocation, yet with all curtesy, lasted 3 hours 
almost. All these interrogatories were about the authority 
of the Pope; and my Lord Salisbury said, “You see, Mr. 
Garnet, we deale not with you in matters of religion, as of 
your priesthood, or of the real presence, but in this high 
point in which you must satisfye the King that he may 
know what to trust unto.” I was glad to have this occasion 
to be accounted a traitour without the Powder House 
rather than within. And thinking myself also obliged to 
professe the Faith of Supremacy, answered in many articles 
according to their demaundes plainly, yet modestly ; and 
with great moderation 'also of rigorous opinions, affirming 
that none could attempt violence against the King, no, not 
the Pope commanding, that I thought he was not excommu¬ 
nicate : that in case one were excommunicated, none could 
execute the sentence without the Pope’s consent. Being 
asked whether all that held the religion established in 
England were liereticks, I said, “ the religion was hereti- 
call; of the persons I would not judge.” “ But are they 
excommunicate, if they be formally liereticks ?” “ They be 

excommunicate in Bulla Coenae ; if onely materially, because 
they never had sufficient knowlege to the contrary, no.” 
“ May the Pope excommunicate our King ?” “ The Pope is 

successour to St. Peter, to whom Christ said, ‘ Pasce oves 
meas,’ and so he may excommunicate Kings also.” They 
urged me to sett downe ‘ our King.’ 1 refused for reverence 
of our King, which they allowed at length. “ Whether 
might the Pope exempt subjects from their fidelity, upon 
cause of excommunication?” I said there was a canon, “ Nos 
Sanctorum,” wherein was such a determination, which lay 
not in my power to abridge. “ May the Pope command 
anything unlawfull for obedience ?” “ Nothing that is unlaw- 


APPENDIX No. I. 


327 


full may be lawfull for obedience.” After some rest, I liad 
another houre before them with Mr. Atturney to small 
purpose, for I refused to acknowledge any of my owne 
names but Garnet, or to name any person which might be 
indamaged by me ; though after, in my other examinations, I 
thought better otherwise, in respect that all was knowen 
before, and I charged with treason in some speciall places ;— 
but 1 am sure I have hurt no body. 

On St. Valentine’s Day I came to the Tower, where I have 
a very fine chamber; but was very sick the 2 first nights 
with ill lodging. I am allowed every mealo a good draught 
of excellent claret wine, and I am liberal with myself and 
neighbours for good respects, to allow also of my own purse 
some sack; and this is the greatest charge I shalbe at 
herafter, for now fire will shortly be unnecessary, if I live so 
long, wherof I am very uncertaine, and as careles. And 
herupon I will tell you a pleasant discourse : I said here in 
one examination to my Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Atturney 
and {Sir William Waad that I cared not for my life, but 
whether innocently to dye, as I hoped (and yet am sure) or 
guilty, death was welcome. Mr. Atturney said, “ It was 
pitty it should be, for I was a man fitte to live and serve my 
country.” Notwithstanding, in another examination, talking 
of the day I was first at Henlip, I said, “ If I had a calender, I 
could tell, for I thought it was St. Sebastian’s Day, or the next 
to it.” “0!” saith he, “ you have saints for every day.” I 
said, “We had for the most“Well,” saith he, “you shall 
have no place in the calender.” “ I am not worthy,” said I, 
“ of a place in the calender, but I hope to have a place 
in Heaven.” Yet he is very courteous, and we sometimes 
are pleasant. They asked me whether I did not christen 
a child at White Webbs; I said, “I thought such a thing 
might be, but remembered not.” Sir W. Wade hearing of a 
child borne in the house—“ 0 !” saith he, “you were at the 
christening, but were you not there at the begetting ?” 
The other two reprehended him, and said the father lived in 
the house, and was one Brookesby, with a bauld head and 
a reddish beard. I said that “that place was a place of 
justice, and such calumniations were unfitte wherein Mr. 
Atturney tooke my part. Sir William is very kind in usuage 
and familiarity, but most violent and impotent in speeches 


328 


APPENDIX No. I. 


wlien he entereth into matters of religion ; he saith, “ All the 
Jesuits’ order shalbe dissolved upon this as the Templers 
1 say, “ Private faults do not prejudice the wliolle.” “ But 
the Jesuits shall now all out of EnglandI sayed that “ if 
it pleased the King to graunt free liberty to other Papists, 
I would presently send away all Jesuits.” My Lord Chief 
Justice said it was more than I could do ; I said, “ I would 
trye.” Indeed, I feare me some particuler thing may be 
done this Parliament against Jesuits ; my advise is that 
they hyre themselves private lodgings, and help their freinds 
abroade, and say they are dismissed for a time by their 
Superior. This I think best till Father-Generall’s will be 
knowen. 

In my last examination they said they could beleeve me 
in nothing I saied. “ Why then,” said I, “ you must bring 
witnesses.” They said they would. This weeke we expect 
them againe, and then either torture or arraignment, for we 
are indighted already. 

They wondered to see me so constantly deny their princi- 
pall objections, wherof they made sure ground, and asked 
me whether I thought they would send out a proclamation 
against me without ground. I answered, “ I as much 
wondered at the proclamation knowing my conscience, but 
if their groundes wer trew (as they were not) no mervaile 
at all.” 

They much urge me to name such noble men as the 
conspiratours in the Spanish actions built on, for they would 
not acquaint any more at the first, but when the time should 
come they made sure reckoning of Northumberland, Rut¬ 
land, Mountagew, &c. But in truth I never heard any such 
thing. I may cliaunce be tortured for these. I say 1 utterly 
disswaded that intent, and they promised to desist, and that 
they tould me they would onely sew for pensions in Spaine. 

I acknowleged I commended Bainam onely for a souldier 
in Flanders, and denyed that ever I sent, or was to send to 
him, or for a noble man whose name they say began with 
Mount, any letters beyond. 

No servants I have taken knowlege of onely Mrs. Parkins, 
though they name her sister also, and saye they will have 
her. Corpus Christi lodging 1 think is safe. 

They charge me with a prayer made or penned at the 


APPENDIX No. I. 


329 


beginning of the Parliament, and the musitian is my accuser ; 
it is in verse : I saied, “ I never penned prayerbut I ghesse 
what they meane. They verely thought I was at White 
Webbs with the conspiratours. I say it after the first of 
September I was ever there, I am guilty of the powder 
action; for this very protestation they urged upon me. The 
time of my going to Coughton is a great presumption, but 
all Catholics know it was necessary. 

Mr. Atturney biddeth me provide to answer a certain 
conference of mine and Greenwell’s, but I hope I shall 
well enough, though I doubt not but Mr. Catesby hath 
fained many such things for to induce others. And I doubt 
not that if I may have justice but to clear myself of this 
powder; as for other treasons, I tell them I care not for a 
thousand. , 

In truth I thank God I am and have bene intrepidus , 
and herin I marvaile at my self, having had such a great 
apprehension before ; but it is God’s grace. And I often feare 
torture ; yet it is the same God, and I cannot be tortured 
but for justice, that is, for not betraying such as either I 
had diverted from their purpose, or was never acquainted 
with their purpose at all. 

You may joine to this such thinges as I have before 
written, and you have all of any importance. 

My Lord Chief Justice asked me whether I were never a 
correctour of a printer; I said, “ Yes ” (for there have I dined 
oft with him), and tould him that I was beginning the law. 
Mr. Atturney wisshed I had gone on. “ 01” saitli Sir 
William, “ he would have marred the law as he hath done 
divinity with his 1 Equivocation.’ ” Sir William telleth of 
two seminaries intended for Spain and Italy in London. You 
know better. 

For your self, when I know how you can place your self 
to your contentment, I will advise you who you may relye 
on. 

Saluto ex toto corde omnes carissimos et aman tissimos me os. 

I was examined 3 severall dayes here, once befor and after 
dinner. 

They were nothing satisfied in my 2 last examinations— 
and the last but one they threatening torture; I said, “ I 
hoped that God would give strength, &c.,” and tould them 


330 


APPENDIX No. I. 


how St. Basill, being threatned with the like by Valens, his 
officers, answered, “ Piteris ista min are.” 

They read to me Mr. Greenwell’s words in confession, 
which I yerely think he never spake, for Bates was sory of 
that he had confessed, and saied it was to save his life. I 
condemned Mr. Greenwell’s words if they were spoken. 

Where is he and Mr. Gerard ? Fanx was courageous 
unto the end, so that he is wondered at. 

There is a muttering here of a sermon which either I 
or Mr. Hall made ;—I feare mine, at Coughton. 

Mr. Hall hath no great matter, but only about Mr. Abing- 
ton, though Mr. Atturney saith he hath more. 

For God’s sake provide bedding for these three—James, 
Jhon, Harry, by begging or by mony, if there be to spare, 
your owne necessities alwayes regarded. I know not how 
Mr. Strainge is provided; it may be he knowetli how r to] 
send out; for to me lie cannot send. 


( 331 ) 


Appendix No. II. 

Interlocutions between Garnet and Hall.— 

23rd February, 1605. 

“ So soon as they came to speak together, they seemed to 
confess themselves one to the other; first Hall, and then 
Garnet, which was short, with a prayer in Latin before they 
did confess to each other, and beating their hands on their 
breasts. Garnet confessed that he had a great suspicion of 
one (whose name I could not hear), but said ho found it but 
a mere suspicion, and that he had been subject much to that 
kind of frailty. 

“ Said Garnet, ‘ I had forgot to tell you I had a note from 
Bookwood*—you know him—and he telleth me that Green¬ 
way is gone over ; I am very glad of that. And I had 
another from Mr. Gerard, that he meaneth to go over to 
Father Parsons, and therefore I hope, if he be not yet taken* 
he is escaped; but it seemeth he hath been put to great 
plunges.’ 

“ ‘ 1 think Mrs. Anne is in the town ; if she be, I have 
writ a note, that my keeper may repair to her near hand, 
and convey me anything unto her, who will let us hear from 
all our friends.’ 

“ ‘ 1 gave him an angel yesterday, because I will be before¬ 
hand with him, and he took it very well, with great thanks ; 
and now and then at meals I make very much of him, and 
give him a cup of sack, and send his wife another, and that 
he taketh very kindly; so I hope we shall have all well. 
You should do well now and then to give him a shilling, 
and sometimes send his wife somewhat. He did see me 
write to Mr. Bookwood, but I will give him no more money 
yet.’ 

“ ‘ I must needs confess White Webbs, that we met there ; 

* This was a brother of Ambrose Rookwood, a priest who was taken at Clopton 
after the discovery of the Plot. 


332 


APPENDIX No. II. 


but I will answer it thus,—that I was there, but knew 
nothing of the matter. 

“ ‘ They prest me to take an oath (as by your priesthood) 
for trifles; but they said my oath was nothing; I might be 
pardoned of the Pope.’ 

“ Then flail said something more softly to Garnet, and he 
answered, ‘ Good Lord ! how did they know that?’* 

‘“It is no matter.’ 

“ ‘ Perhaps they will press me with certain prayers that I 
made, against the time of the Parliament, for the good 
success of that business, which indeed is true. But I may 
answer that well, for I will say, it is true that I did doubt 
that at this next Parliament there would be more severe 
laws made against the Catholics, and therefore I made those 
prayers ; and that will answer it well enough.’ 

“ ‘ Mr. Attorney told me very friendly, that he would 
make the best construction to the King of my examinations, 
to do me good, and used me very kindly.’ 

“ ‘But Sir William Waad will sometimes scarce speak to 
me, and yet sometimes he will sit down, as he passeth 
through my chamber, and use me with very good words. 
But when he falleth into speech of Jesuits, Lord, how he 
inveigheth at them, and speaketli the strangeliest things 
that can be! And he told me that we were all of opinion 
that Catholic religion must be maintained under one 
monarchy ; and who is that monarch but the King of Spain ? 
Nay, he told me that he knew a gentlewoman that had a 
child by a Jesuit, and that I knew her well enough. And in 
these bitter terms did he tell me that he could directly 
charge me with divers several treasons, confessed by sundry 
persons that were witnesses in the Queen’s time. 

“ ‘ For my sending into Spain before the Queen’s death, I 
need not deny it; but I care not for those things; he 
knoweth I have my pardon for that time, and therefore he 
will not urge them to do me hurt.’ 

“‘If I can satisfy the King well in this matter, it will be 
well; but I think it not convenient to deny we were at 
White Webbs, they do so much insist upon that place. 
Since I came out of Essex, I was there two times ; and so I 

* In the margin of the original is here written in Forset’s hand-writing, “ This 
I did not well hear; only I heard Garnet’s answer.” 


APPENDIX No. II. 


333 


may say 1 was there. But they pressed me to be there in 
October last, which I will by no means confess; but I will 
tell them 1 was not there since Bartliolomew-tide; neither 
will I tell them of my knowledge of any of the servants 
there, for they may then examine and perhaps torture some 
of them, and make them yield to some confession. But if 
they ask me of the servants, 1 will tell them they never 
came up to where I was.’ 

“ * * * § But I was afraid when they spake to me of Sir Edmund 
Baynliam, that I should be asked somewhat of the letters 
of my Lord Montague* did write and send by him; but I 
hope they will not yet; perhaps hereafter they will.’ 

“ 4 And, in truth, I am well persuaded that I shall wind 
myself out of this matter, and for any former business I 
care not.’ 

“ 4 Hark you, hark you, Mr. La,f whilst I shut the door 
make a hawking and spitting.’ ” 

25th February, 1605. X 

‘ 4 4 Sir William told me I was indicted. I marvel whether 
it were before the proclamation or since. If before, it will 
be the worse for Mr. Abington ; if since, it is no great hurt 
to him.’ 

“Garnet said, 4 he was charged with some advice he 
should give in Queen Elizabeth’s time, of the blowing 
up of the Barliament House with gunpowder.’§ 4 Indeed 
(said he to Hall) I told them at that time it was lawful, but 
wished them to do their best to save as many as they could 
that were innocents.’ (His words we conceived tended to 
this purpose.) 

44 4 They pressed me with a question, what noblemen I 

* This word is “ Montague ” in the original, but it seems to have been Lord 
Mounteagle who wrote by Baynham; and therefore this is possibly a mistake of 
the listeners. 

f It is thus in the original, but the meaning is unknown. 

J This interlocution is from the Tanner MSS. the whole of it being transcribed 
in Archbishop Sancroft’s hand-writing. The three others are taken from the 
originals at the State-Paper Office. 

§ Dr. Abbott cites an Examination of Fawkes, dated 20th January, 1605-6, in 
which he states that “Owen told him in Flanders that the project of blowing up 
the Parliament-House had been devised by Thomas Morgan in Queen Elizabeth's 
time.” Antilogia, p. 137. An Examination of Fawkes, of the 20th of January, to 
the above effect, is mentioned often by Dr. Abbott, and also by other contemporary 
writers who had access to the original; but it is not now to be found. 


334 


APPENDIX No. II. 


knew that have written any letters to Rome, and by whom 1 
Well, I see they will justify my Lord Mounteagde of all this 
matter. I said nothing of him, neither will I ever confess him.’ 
Then Garnet mentioned my Lord of Northumberland, my 
Lord of Rutland, and one more (whom we heard not well); 
but to what effect they were named we could not hear, by 
occasion of a cock crowing under the window of the room, 
and the cackling of a hen at the very same instant. 

“ Saith Garnet, ‘ There is one special thing of which I 
doubted they would have taken an exact account of me ; to 
wit, of the causes of my coming to Coughton, which indeed 
would have bred a great suspicion of the matter. I will 
write to-day or to-morrow (to whom we could not hear), 
to let them know that I am resolved to do my lord no hurt.’ 

“ Garnet used some words to this effect, ‘ I hope they 
have yet no knowledge of the great, &c. ;’ but it was not 
well heard by either of us. 

“ 4 I will need take knowledge that you were with me at 
White Webbs.’ 'Then he told Hall of a lease that was 
showed him for taking of White Webbs, and other words to 
that effect. ‘ You did not confess that we came together to 
Mrs. Abington’s 1 For you know what we resolved upon.’ 
Then they seemed to think that they had failed in their 
several confessions for their meeting, and about their horses ; 
and Garnet seemed to be very sorry that Hall held not 
better concurrence. But now they contrived how to answer 
that point with more concurrence ; to wit, as if Garnet or 
Hall had misnamed one the other, instead of a third person, 
whom they have now resolved upon. Garnet said, 4 They 
went away unsatisfied, and therefore we must expect, at the 
next time, either to go to the rack, or to pass quietly with 
the rest.’ 4 But,’ said he, 4 they pressed me with so many 
trifles and circumstances, that I was troubled to make 
answer, and I told them if they would demand anything 
concerning myself, I was ready to deal plainly; but to 
accuse any other that were innocent, it might be some 
matter of conscience to me ; and I told them that none could 
be judge of my conscience but myself. Mr. Attorney was 
about to write, but when he had written three lines he gave it 
over, and seemed to be angry, saying, 4 1 had lost my credit, 
for lie had undertaken for me to the King.’ 


APPENDIX No. II. 


335 


“ Then they conferred how to get more money, and 
Garnet said that he had a friend to whom he would send his 
keeper. 

“ Garnet said ‘he was charged about certain prayers to be 
said for the success of this business at the beginning of the 
Parliament. To which he answered that if they would show 
him any such prayers he would confess if they were done by 
him; which was refused to be done.’ ‘ They then pressed 
me whether if it could be proved that I made such prayer, 
I would yield myself privy to all the rest ? Indeed, upon 
All-hallows day we used those prayers, and then I did 
repeat to them two Latin verseswhich, both prayers and 
verses, Garnet did now rehearse to Hall, confessing that he 
made them both. 

“Garnet said, ‘ They mentioned the letters sent into 
Spain; but I answered that those letters were of no other 
matter but to have pensions.’ 

“ Garnet said something to Hall of a gentlewoman, that if 
he were charged with her, he would excuse her conversing 
with him ; but how we could not well hear. 

“ Garnet said he was asked of Robert Chambers, and said 
somewhat of James or Johnson, who he heard was upon the 
rack for three hours, at which he marvelled; ‘ for,’ said he, 
‘ Fawkes was but half-an-hour, and yet they won him to 
confession.’ 

“ They spake of Strange, who they heard should be 
hanged. Then Garnet said, ‘ Upon what point do they 
touch him V Hall, as well as we could hear, named some¬ 
thing he had done against Sir Robert Cecil, but the rest Ave 
heard not. 

“Garnet bid Hall take his shovel and make a noise 
amongst the coals, whilst he might shut the door. 

“ We did observe, that from the beginning to the ending 
of all the conference, neither of them named God, or recom¬ 
mended their cause or themselves to G od, but applied them¬ 
selves wholly to the matter. 

“ Edward Forsett. 

“ J. Locherson ” 


336 


APPENDIX No. II. 


27th February, 1605. 

“ ‘ How now, how do you ? is all well V said Garnet. 

“ And so they proceeded to the rehearsal of the examina¬ 
tion yesterday taken, and then Hall (who spake most at this 
time) seemed to relate to Garnet the points of his confession, 
which we could not well hear, more than when we heard 
Garnet’s liking or dislike thereof. And where he liked he 
said no more but ‘ Well, well; that was well.’ 

“ ‘ I think,’ said Garnet, * they have even done w r ith ex¬ 
amining of me, and truly I hope they will not bring me to 
any arraignment.’ 

“ Then it seemed unto us that Hall told Garnet how he 
answered the matters of White Webbs, which Garnet said it 
"was well; ‘ but,’ said he, ‘ for the other matter, of our 
meeting on the way, it w r ere better to leave it in a contra¬ 
diction, as it was, lest perhaps the poor fellow shall be tor¬ 
tured for the clearing of that point.’ 

“ Said Garnet, ‘ I was asked of some noblemen, but I 
answered it well enough, I think.’ 

“ Garnet said, he was asked again about the prayer which 
he was charged to have made, and then did name the prayer 
by a special name to Hall, thereby putting Hall in remem¬ 
brance thereof: ‘ but,’ said he, ‘ I shall avoid that well 
enough.’ 

“ He spake of witnesses to be produced unto him, face to 
face, but to what end we did not hear him declare. 

“ Garnet said that Mr. Attorney did rail against the Pope, 
and that all the Jesuits should rue for it. Then Garnet 
desired that the whole should not be charged with the faults 
of some particular men. ‘Nay,’ said Mr, Attorney, ‘they 
do all look to be made saints for such their practices,’ and 
told me that ‘ my name would be put into the calendar of 
saints.’ 

“Then Garnet said that ‘if the Pope and their generals 
should appoint them to any action wherein the Pope may 
think to deserve to be a saint in heaven, therein I may hope 
for such cause to be a saint in the calendar.’ 

“ ‘ Indeed, I was pressed again with Coughton, which I 
most feared, questioning with me of my times of coming 
thither, the place, at such time, and the company.’ Where- 
unto we did not hear any report of Garnet’s answer. 


APPENDIX No. II. 


“ Garnet mentioned a place where they had said mass on 
a Sunday ; but his words that followed we could not hear. 

“ r l hen Garnet said that Mr. Attorney asked him, if he 
were not at a christening of a child at White Webbs, 
and that Sir William Waad said gibingly, ‘ He was surely 
at the christening, if lie were not at the getting of it.’ 
Then said Garnet, it were not fit to use those words to him, 
at that time, in this place of justice. Then said Mr. At¬ 
torney to him again, ‘ Why,’ said he, ‘ you know it well 
enough; it was Mrs. Brookesby’s child; it had a shaven 
crown.’ 

“ Garnet made mention of one Mrs. Jennings, who only 
we heard named. 

“ Then Garnet bid Hall hold up his mouth higher. 

“Garnet said they let him see James;* ‘but,’saith he, 

‘ he went but along by me.’ 

“ Then Hall having said somewhat to Garnet, which we 
could not hear, Garnet told him that he had answered 
them ; that there was divers that knew him whom he knew 
not. 

“ Then said Garnet, ‘ Well, I will leave you now.’ 

“Then Garnet returned to Hall again, and asked him 
what he had given the keeper in all. Hall’s answer we 
could not hear. ‘Well, well; we will remember him well 
enough,’ said Garnet, ‘ and so I told him.’ Garnet was often 
going from Hall. 

“ ‘ Well,’ said Garnet, ‘ if they examine me any more I will 
urge them to bring proofs against me; for,’ said he, ‘ they 
speak of three or four witnesses.’ 

“ Then Hall said somewhat. 

“ ‘ Well,’ said Garnet, ‘ leave now ; we shall have occasion 
to come together often enough;’ and so he bid Hall shake 
the great fire-shovel amongst the coals. 

“ We again observed, that neither at their first meeting 
nor at parting, nor in any part of their conference, they 
used one word of godliness or religion, or recommending 

themselves or their cause to God; but all hath been how to 

* The person here alluded to was James Johnson, who was the principal servant 
at the house at White Webbs. A few days before he had been brought with a 
keeper to Garnet’s chamber in the Tower, in order to identify him as the person 
who went by the name of Walley. 


Q 


APPENDIX No. II. 


838 

contrive safe answers, and to concm in so much as may 
concern those matters they are examined of. 

“Edward Forsett, 

“ J. Locherson.” 

March 2nd, 1G05. 

“ ‘ Hark you, is all well ?’ said Garnet; ‘ let us go to con¬ 
fession first if you will.’ 

“ Then began Hall to make his confession, who we could 
not hear well; but Garnet did often interrupt him, and said, 
‘ Well, well.’ 

“And then Garnet confessed himself to Hall, which w r as 
uttered very much more softlier than he used to whisper in 
their interlocutions, and but short; and confessed that 
because he had drunk extraordinarily * he was fain to go 
two nights to bed betimes. 

“Upon speeches by Hall, of one he saw yesterday (as 
we guessed), Garnet told him that he was assured that 
Little John f would not confess anything of importance of 
him. 

“ Hall told Garnet (as we guess by Garnet’s repetition 
thereof), that he should have no favour. 

“ Garnet used some speeches to Hall of the Jesuits, and 
said, ‘ That cannot be, I am Chancellor,’ and said it might 
proceed from the malice of the priests. 

“ Garnet asked Hall what was said to him of White 
Webbs : Hall’s answer we could not hear. 

“Garnet made great haste away, for he said he had 
received a letter from them. 

“ Garnet told Hall that if it be not known that Mr. Abing- 
ton was acquainted with their being in his house, he would 
do well enough. 

“And so Garnet broke off in haste for the reading or 
writing of a letter; and spake to Hall to make a noise with 
the shovel. 

“ Edward Forsett, 
“J. Locherson.” 

* This part of Garnet’s confession, if accurately overheard, seems to confirm the 
imputation of drunkenness, which was repeatedly charged upon him by his con¬ 
temporaries. 

f This was Nicholas Owen, who, on the same day on which this conference 
occurred, committed suicide in the Tower. 


( 339 ) 


Appendix No. III. 


(A.) 

The Voluntary Confession of Henry Garnett, Superior of 

THE JESUITES, TAKEN THIS 13 OF MARCH. 

Upon occasion of thinking of the (great)* as your lordship 
knoweth, and withall calling to mynde that which hath 
ben comended unto me, if perchaunce I had intelligence of 
any greater matters concerning the good of the state, I 
remembred 2 substantiall pointes: the one used by Mr. 
Catesby as an invincible argument in his opinion for his 
purposes; the other also, in your lordships’ opynion, not 
unfitt to be opened to His Majestie. 

The first was of 2 breves, set to my handes in Queen 
Elizabeth’s time, a yere (as I thinke) before her death, toge¬ 
ther with the copy of a letter to the Nuncio in Flanders. 
One of the breves was to all lay Catholiques, the other to 
all the clergy. The effect of both was that none should 
consent to any successour (being never so neere in blood) 
except he were not only such as wold give toleration to 
Catholiques, but also would with all his might sett forward 
the Catholicke religion; and according to the custome of 
other Catholicke princes submitt himself to the Sea Aposto- 
licall. The effect of the letter to the Nuncio was that he 
should be very vigilant, and when he heard the Quene to be 
dead, he should in the Pope’s name intimate this comaund- 
ment to all the Catholickes in England. 

I had no comission to divulge any such thing, and so I 
kept them very close; and when I sawe the Quene was 
dead, I burned them. Yet had Mr. Catesby, and I thinke 

* In the Interlocution of the 25th of February {ante, p. 331), Garnet says to 
Hall, “I hope they have yet no knowledge of the great,” &c.; hut the end of the 
sentence w r as not heard by the listeners. It was always supposed to refer to the 
Papal Breves, and many of the subsequent examinations were directed to this 
point. 


340 


APPENDIX No. III. 


Thomas Wynter, seene them, and so they mayd use of 
them, for Mr. Catesby sayd, “ Why were wee comaunded 
before to kepe out one that was not a Catliolicke, and now 
may not exclude him ?” Neither had I any other reason to 
use against him, but that which I mentioned in an other 
declaration, that the Pope himself had given other order, 
and now all princes were very joy full as well as the Pope. 

The second point was of a league made betwene the Pope 
and the 2 Kinges of Spaine and France for the establishing 
of a Catliolicke successor in England, which was fully con¬ 
cluded of amongst them, and that the army should be under 
the Pope’s name, but yet at the said two Ivinge’s charges. 

One only thing wanted to be resolved whither King yt 
more concerned to have a prince Catliolicke in England, and 
hereapon the Quene dyed before any conclusion of practise 
and execution. Theis things I have thought good to sett 
downe in such secresy as may be thought good : for I wold 
be loath by this occasion any dissension should arise 
amongest princes. And as for the Pope I know he mcaneth 
all love and quiettnes. 

Henry Garnett. 


(B.) 

The Examination of Henrye Garnett at the Tower, the 

14th of March 1605. 

He confesseth that in the Quene’s life tyme he received twoo 
breifes concerning the succession, and immediately uppon 
the receitte thereof he shewed them to Mr. Catesby and 
Thomas Wynter, then being at Witewebbs, wdiercof they 
semed to be verie glad, and shewed it also to Thomas Percy 
at Witewebbs, before one of his journies into Scotland in 
he late Quene’s time. And saitli that Catesby cam to 
Whitewebbs the same day the Quene died, and brought him 
the first newes of the Quene's death, and of the proclama¬ 
tion and applause of the people, and thereupon this exanim¬ 
ate tyndinge the state settled, burnt both the said papers, 



APPENDIX No. III. 


341 


which were sub annulo Piscatoris , which is a picture of Saint 
Peter in a ship, casting his nett into the sea. 

And saitli that after Thomas Wynter retorned from his 
negotiation, in Spaine, he came, and, as he thinketh, Catesby 
with him, to Whitewebbs, and tould this exanimate that 
the Kinge of Spaine desireth to be advertised, when the 
Quene died. 

He confessetli that about midsommer was twelve moneth, 
Catesby and Wynter, or Catesby alone, cam to him at 
Whitewebbs, and tould this examinate that there was a 
plott in hand for the Catholique cause against the Kinge 
and the state which would worke good effect From the 
which when this examinate (as he sayth) diswaded him, 
Catesby sayed that he was sure it was lawfull. And used 
this argument, “ That it being lawfull by the force of the 
sayd Briefes of the Pope to have kept the Kinge out, it was 
as lawfull nowe to put him outwhereupon he urged the 
Pope’s prohibition, and he promised to surceasse. 

And confessetli, that when Greenwell acquainted this 
examinate with the powder action of blowinge up of the 
Parliament House, as before he hath confessed, this exanim¬ 
ate being desirous to knowe the secret, Greenwell sayd that 
he was bounde to secrecie. And further sayth as before ho 
hath confessed. 

(Signed) Henry Garnett. 


(C.) 

20° Marty 1606. 

The Effect of Two Breves of Succession and of the 
Letter to the Nuncio so farre as I remember. 

The date of these two breves concerning succession, 1 find 
now to be more auncient than before I thought. For I 
remember it was before the last Breve of Attonement, and 
also before Mr. Blacke’s censure of the appealles ; for these 
2 Breves supposed Mr. Blacke’s autority over laymen, which 
was abridged in the last Breve of Attonement. And I 




342 


APPENDIX No. III. 


verely tliink that the Pope, seing the differences here which 
were, did not at all account for those 2 former Breves of 
Succession, and that they were even worne out of date 
before the Quene’s death. So that if there be any booke of 
the appellants extant, wherein is their appeale a man may 
easily guesse at the date of these Breves. 

The effect of the letter to the Nuncio was to commend 
unto him the vigilent care accustomed over other countries 
adjoining to England; allso, “ ut quandocumque contingeret 
miseram illam foenimam ex hac vita excedere,” he would not 
spare all labours to certifye the Pope and divulge the 
Breves in England by his autority, and in the Pope’s name 
whose assistance should not want. 

To Catholicks of the laity he commended to remembrance 
a “ vita pietatis ac religionist and praised the longanimity 
of all sorts, hoping that God of his goodnes would once give 
them tranquillity, after their long distresses, and especially 
he comended unto all priestes, after so many glorious 
laboures for the Holy Catliolick Church, all fraternall unity 
and concord : that the wliolle church might with joy seethe 
fruit of so many yeares endeavoures. 

The maine pointe of the two Breves was for to exclude all 
successoures from the Crowne “ quantumcunque propinquitate 
sanguinis niterentur, nisi ejusmodi essent qui non modo fidem 
Catholicam tolerarent , sed earn etiam omni ope ac studio pro- 
move rent, ac more majorum id se jurejurando prestituros 
susciperent .” 

All this was not done any way directly against his 
Majesty, who without exception was the most desired on all 
sides if it had pleased God to have inclined him that way, 
but rather and principally against diverse other competi- 
toures within this realme, whose partes might perhaps have 
been somewhat troublesome to his Majesty, if any foraine 
prince had made resistance and sought to divide the realme 
at that time, as thankes be to God it was not sought nor 
pretended. There were, at that time, at least 4 houses in 
England which might have bene prejudiced by these 
breves as much as his Majesty hath bene, for thanks be to 
God they did him no harrne. And if these Breves were 
written before my Lord of Essex his fall, as perhaps by 


APPENDIX No. III. 


343 


supputation may be found, he might have made the fifth, 
and perhaps the most mighty of all except his Majesty, 
whom Almighty God establish here with his posterity for 
ever, and incline him to extend his favour toward poore 
Catholicks, that they may enjoy long their life, liberty, and 
worldly goods to his Majestie’s perpetual service. 

(Signed) Henry Garnet. 

[The following is written on the same page as the indorse¬ 
ment.] 

These are the groundes of the lardger discours. The 
Breves before the last definite sentence —Misera ilia femina 
—Laudatur ejus vigilantia , commendatur cura. 

Commendatio a vita pietatis et diuturnce pat lent ice Catho- 
licorum. 

Collandatio laborum ac constantice presbyterum.—Exortatio 
ad concordiam. 

Exclusio quorumcunque qui non modo non toleret sed et non 
promoveret Catholicam fidem , et more majorum ac aliorun 
principum obedientiam Sedi Apostolicce promittat . 

Sedes Apostolica non deerit, et spes in Deo quod ipae illorum 
laboribus non deesset. 

All this not for respect of his Majesty, but of many other 
competitoures at that time in like expectation, or at the 
least not unlikely. 


(D.) 

Garnett’s Confession in his own Hand. 

I do not remember that ever Lord Mounteagle saw the 
Breves. Mr. Tressam saw them about the time that the 
going into Spaine w r as treating—that is, about Candlemas 
the year before the Quene died. Mr. Percy saw them im¬ 
mediately before his going into Scotland the last time before 
the death of the Queen, 27 Martii. 


Henry Garnett. 



344 


APPENDIX No. III. 


Mr. Tressam saw tlie breves about the time that the going 
into Spaine was treating—that is, about Candlemas the year 
before the Queen dyed. 

Mr. Percy saw them immediately before his going into 
Scotland the last time before the death of the Queen. 

As far as I can remember, Mr. Catesby did shew them to 
my Lo. Mountegle at the same when Mr. Tressam w r as with 
him at White Webbs.—27 Martii. 

Henry Garnett. 


LONDON: PRINTED Ur W. CLOWES AND SONS, DUKE 


STREET, STAMFORD STREET. 


Albemarle Street, London. 
May, 1858. 


MR MURRAY’S 

GENERAL LIST OF WORKS. 


ABBOTT’S (Rev. J.) Philip Musgrave; or. Memoirs of a Church of 

England Missionary in the North American Colonies. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 

ABERCROMBIE’S (John, M.D.) Enquiries concerning the Intel¬ 
lectual Powers and the Investigation of Truth. Fifteenth Edition. 
Fcap. 8vo. 6s. 6 d. 

- Philosophy of the Moral Feelings. Tenth 

Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 4s. 

-- Pathological and Practical Researches on the 

Diseases of the Stomach, <fcc. Third Edition. Fcap. 8vo. "i. 

ACLAND’S (Rev. Charles) Popular Account of the M rs and 
Customs of India. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 

ADDISON’S WORKS. A New Edition, with a New Life and 

Notes. By Rev. Whitwell Elwin. 4 Vols. 8vo. In Preparation. 

ADOLPHUS'S (J. L.) Letters from Spain, in 1856 and 1857. 

Post 8vo. 10s. 6d. 

J5SCHYLUS. (The Agamemnon and Choephoroe.) Edited, with 
Notes. By Rev. W. Peile, D.D. Second Edition. 2 Vols. 8vo. 9s. 
each. 

iESOP’S FABLES. A New Translation. With Historical 

Preface. By Rev. Thomas James, M.A. With 100 Woodcuts, by John 
Tenniel. 2 6th Thousand. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 

AGRICULTURAL (The) Journal. Of the Royal Agricultural 

Society of England. 8vo. 10s. Published half-yearly. 

AMBER-WITCH (The). The most interesting Trial for Witch¬ 
craft ever known. Translated from the German by Lady Duff 
Gordon. Post 8vo. 2s. 6 d. 

ARABIAN NIGHTS. A New Translation, with Explanatory 

Notes. By E. W. Lane. Third Edition. Woodcuts. Medium 8vo. 21s. 

ARTHUR’S (Little) History of England. By Lady Callcott. 

Eighteenth Edition. With 20 Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 2 s.6d. 

AUNT IDA’S Walks and Talks ; a Story Book for Children. By 

a Lady. Woodcuts. 16mo. 5s. 

AUSTIN’S (Sarah) Fragments from German Prose Writers. 
With Biographical Notes. Post 8vo. 10s. 

-- Translation of Ranke’s History of the Popes of Rome. 

Third Edition. 2 Vols. 8vo. 24s. 








9 


LIST OF AVORKS 


ADMIRALTY PUBLICATIONS; Issued by direction of tlie Lords 

Commissioners of the Admiralty:— 

1. A MANUAL OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY, for the Use of Officers in 

H.M.Navy and Travellers in General. By Various Hands. Third, 
Edition. Post 8vo. 

2. AIRY’S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS made at Greenwich. 

1836 to 1847. Royal 4to. 50s. each. 

- ASTRONOMICAL RESULTS. 1848 to 1855. 4to. 8s. each. 

3. -APPENDICES TO THE ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVA¬ 

TIONS. 

1836. —I. Bessel’s Refraction Tables. 1 

II. Tables for converting Errors of R.A. and N.P.D. >8s. 
into Errors of Longitude and Ecliptic P.D. _) 

1837. —I. Logarithms of Sines and Cosines to every Ten ) 

Seconds of Time. ,-8s. 

II. Table for converting Sidereal into Mean Solar Time. J 
1842.—Catalogue of 1439 Stars. 8s. 

1845.—Longitude of Valentia, Ss. 

1847.—Twelve Years’ Catalogue of Stars. 14s. 

1851. —Masketyne s Ledger o' Stars. 6s. 

1852. —I. Description of the Transit Circle. 5s. 

II. Regulations of the Royal Observatory. 2s. 

1853. —Bessel’s Refraction Taffies. 3s. 

1854. —I. Description of the Zenith Tube. 3s. 

II. Six Years’ Catalogue of Stars. 10s. 

4. - MAGNETICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVA¬ 

TIONS. 1840 to 1847. Royal 4to. 50s. each. 

- MAGNETICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL RESULTS. 

1848 to 1855. 4to. 8s. each. 

5. - ASTRONOMICAL, MAGNETICAL, AND METEOROLO¬ 

GICAL OBSERVATIONS, 1848 to 1854. Royal 4to. 50s. each. 

6. - REDUCTION OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF PLANETS, 

1750 to 1830. Royal 4to. 50s. 

7. -LUNAR OBSERVATIONS. 1750 

to 1830. 2 Vols. Royal 4to. 50s. each. 

8. BERNOULLI’S SEXCENTENARY TABLE. London, 1779. 4to. 

9. BESSEL’S AUXILIARY TABLES FOR HIS METHOD OF CLEAR¬ 

ING LUNAR DISTANCES. 8vo. 

10. -FUNDAMENTA ASTRONOMIC: Begiomontii, 1818. Folio. 60s. 

11. BIRD’S METHOD OF CONSTRUCTING MURAL QUADRANTS 

London , 1768. 4to. 2s. Qd. 

12. - METHOD OF DIVIDING ASTRONOMICAL INSTRU¬ 

MENTS. London, 1767. 4to. 2s. 6d. 

13. COOK, KING, and BAYLY’S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS. 

London, 1782. 4to. 21s. 

14. EIFFE’S ACCOUNT OF IMPROVEMENTS IN CHRONOMETERS. 

4to. 2s. 

15. ENCKE’S BERLINER JAHRBUCII, for 1S30. Berlin, 1828. 8vo. 9s. 

16. GROOMBRIDGE’S CATALOGUE OF CIRCUMPOLAR STARS. 

4to. 10s. 

17. HANSEN’S TABLES DE LA LUNE. 4to. 20s. 

17. HARRISON’S PRINCIPLES OF HIS TIME-KEEPER. Plates. 
1767. 4to. 5s. 

IS. HUTTON’S TABLES OF THE PRODUCTS AND POWERS OF 
NUMBERS. 1781. Folio. 7s. Qd. 

19. LAX’S TABLES FOR FINDING THE LATITUDE AND LONGI¬ 

TUDE. 1821. 8vo. 10s. 

20. LUNAR OBSERVATIONS at GREENWICH. 1783 to 1S19. Compared 

with the Tables, 1821. 4to. 7s. 6 d. 












PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 


3 


Admiralty Publications—- contmuoZ. 

22. MASKELYNE’S ACCOUNT OF THE GOING OF HARRISON’S 
WATCH. 1767. 4to. 2s. 6 cf. 

21. MAYER'S DISTANCES of the MOON’S CENTRE from the 
PLANETS. 1822, 3s.; 1823, 4s. 6d. 1824 to 1835, 8vo. 4s. each. 

23--THEORIA LUNAE JUNTA SYSTEM A NEWTONIANUM. 

4to. 2s. 6 d . 

24. - TABULA MOTUUM SOLIS ET LUNJE. 1770. 4to. 5s. 

25. - ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS MADE AT GOT¬ 

TINGEN, from 1756 to 1761. 1826. Folio. 7s. 6 J. 

26. NAUTICAL ALMANACS, from 1767 to 1861. 8 vo. 2s. 6 J. each. 

27. - SELECTIONS FROM THE ADDITIONS 

up to 1812. 8vo. 5s. 1834-54. 8vo. 5s. 

28. - SUPPLEMENTS, 1S28 to 1833,1837 and 1838. 

8 vo. 2 s. each. 

29. - TABLE requisite to he used with the N.A. 

1781. 8 vo. 5s. 

30. POND’S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS. 1811 to 1835. 4to. 21s. 

each. 

31. RAMSDEN’S ENGINE for Dividing Mathematical Instruments. 

4to. 5s. 

32. - ENGINE for Dividing Straight Lines. 4to. 5s. 

33. SABINE’S PENDULUM EXPERIMENTS to Determine the Figure 

of the Earth. 1825. 4to. 40s. 

34. SHEPHERD’S TABLES for Correcting Lunar Distances. 1772. 

Royal 4to. 21s. 

35. - TABLES, GENERAL, of the MOON’S DISTANCE 

from the SUN, and 10 STARS. 1787. Folio. 5s. 6d. 

36. TAYLOR’S SEXAGESIMAL TABLE. 1780. 4to. 15s. 

37 . -TABLES OF LOGARITHMS. 4to. 31. 

38. TIARK’S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS for the Longitude 

of Madeira. 1822. 4to. 5s. 

39. - CHRONOMETRICAL OBSERVATIONS for Differences 

of Longitude between Dover, Portsmouth, and Falmouth. 1823. 
4to. 5s. 

40. VENUS and JUPITER: Op.servations of, compared with the Tables. 

London, 1822. 4to. 2s. 

41. WALES’ AND BAYLY’S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS. 

1777. 4to. 21s. 

42. WALES’ REDUCTION OF ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS 

made in the Southern Hemisphere. 1764—1771. 1788. 4to. 
10s. 3d. 

BABBAGE’S (Charles) Economy of Machinery and Manufactures. 

Fourth Edition. Fcap. Svo. 6 s. 

-Ninth Bridgewater Treatise. 8vo. 95. 6d. 

-Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, 

and on some of its Causes. 4to. 7s. 6 d. 

— Yiews of the Industry, the Science, and the Govern¬ 

ment of England, 1S51. Second Edition. Svo. 7s. 3d. 

BAIKIE’S (W. B.) Narrative of an Exploring Yoyage up the Rivers 

Quorra and Tsliadda in 1S54. Map. 8 vo. 16s. 

n 2 














4 


LIST OF WORKS 


BANKES’ (George) Story of Corfe Castle, with documents relating 
to the Time of the Civil Wars, &c. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 10s. 6 d. 

BASSOMPIERRE’S Memoirs of his Embassy to the Court of 

England in 1626. Translated with Notes. 8vo. 9s. 6d. 

BARROW’S (Sir John) Autobiographical Memoir, including 
Reflections, Observations, and Reminiscences at Home and Abroad. 
From Early Life to Advanced Age. Portrait. 8vo. 16s. 

_ Voyages of Discovery and Research within the 

Arctic Regions, from 1818 to the present time. Abridged and ar¬ 
ranged from the Official Narratives. 8vo. 15s. 

- (Sir George) Ceylon; Past and Present. Map. 

Post 8vo. 6s. 6 d. 

- - (John) Naval Worthies of Queen Elizabeth’s Reign, 

their Gallant Deeds, Daring Adventures, and Services in the infant state 
of the British Navy. 8vo. 14s. 

--- Life and Voyages of Sir Francis Drake. With nume¬ 

rous Original Letters. Post 8vo. 2s. Qd. 

BEES AND FLOWERS. Two Essays. By Rev. Thomas James. 

Reprinted from the “ Quarterly Review.” Fcap. 8vo. Is. each. 

BELL’S (Sir Charles) Anatomy and Philosophy of Expression as 

connected with the Fine Arts. Fourth Edition. Plates. Impl. 8vo. 21s. 

- Mechanism and Vital Endowments of the Hand as 

evincing Design. The Bridgewater Treatise. Sixth Edition. Wood- 
cuts. Post 8vo. 7s. 6 d. 

BENEDICT’S (Jules) Sketch of the Life and Works of Felix 

Mendelssohn Bartholdy. Second Edition. 8vo. 2s. 6d. 

BERTHA’S Journal during a Visit to her Uncle in England. 

Containing a Variety of Interesting and Instructive Information. Seventh 
Edition. Woodcuts. 12mo. 7s. 6d. 

BIRCH’S (Samuel) History of Ancient Pottery: Egyptian, 

Assyrian, Greek, Roman, and Etruscan. With 200 Illustrations. 2 Vols. 
Medium 8vo. 42s. 

BLUNT’S (Rev. J. J.) Principles for the proper understanding of 
the Mosaic Writings, stated and applied, together with an Incidental 
Argument for the truth of the Resurrection of our Lord. Being the 
IIulsean Lectures for 1832. Post 8vo. 6s. Sd. 

- - Undesigned Coincidences in the Writings of the Old 

and New Testament, an Argument of their Veracity: with an 
Appendix containing Undesigned Coincidences between the Gospels, 
Acts, and Josephus. Fifth Edition. 8vo. 9s. 

- History of the Church in the First Three Centuries. 

Second Edition. 8vo. 9s. 6d. 

-*■ Duties, Acquirements and Obligations of the Parish 

Priest. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 7s. 6 d. 

-Lectures on the Right Use of the Early Fathers. 

Svo. 15s. 

-- Plain Sermons Preached to a Country Congregation. 

Second Edition. Post 8vo. 7s. 6J. 

--Second Series. Post 8vo. 


















PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 


5 


BLACKSTONE’S (Sir William) Commentaries on the Laws of 

England. A New Edition, adapted to the present state of the law. By 
K. Malcolm Kerr, LL.D. 4 Vols. Svo, 42s. 

-(The Student’s Blackstone:) Being those portions 

of the above work which relate to the British Constitution and the 
Rights of Persons. By R. Malcolm Kerr, LED. Post Svo. 9s. 

BLAINE (Roberton) on the Laws of Artistic Copyright and their 
Defects, for Artists, Engravers, Printsellers, &c. Svo. 3s. 6ei. 

BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. With 1000 Illustrations of 

Borders, Initials, and Woodcut Vignettes. A New Edition. Medium 
Svo. 21s. cloth, 31s. 6d. calf, or 42s. morocco. 

BOSWELL’S (James) Life of Dr. Johnson. Including the Tour to 

the Hebrides. Edited by Mr. Croker. 1'hird Edition. Portraits. Royal 
Svo. 15s. 

BORROWS (George) Lavengro ; The Scholar—The Gipsy—and 
the Priest. Portrait. 3 Vols. Post Svo. 30s. 

- Romany Rye; a Sequel to Lavengro. Second 

Edition. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 21s. 

Bible in Spain; or the Journeys, Adventures, and 
Imprisonments of an Englishman in an Attempt to circulate the 
Scriptures in the Peninsula. 3 Vols. Post Svo. 27s., or Popular Edition, 
16mo, 6s. 

Zincali, or the Gipsies of Spain; their Manners, 
Customs, Religion, and Language. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 18s., or Popular 
Edition, 16mo, 6s. 

BRAY’S (Mrs.) Life of Thomas Stothard, R.A. With Personal 

Reminiscences. Illustrated with Portrait and 60 Woodcuts of his 
chief works. 4to. 

BREWSTER’S (Sir David) Martyrs of Science, or the Lives of 

Galileo, Tycho Brahe, and Kepler. Second Edition. Fcap. Svo. 4s. 6d. 

-More Worlds than One. The Creed of the Philo¬ 

sopher and the Hope of the Christian. Seventh Thousand. Post 8vo. 6s. 

- Stereoscope: its History, Theory, Construction, 

and Application to the Arts and to Education. Second Edition. V ood- 
cuts. 12mo. 5s. 6d. 

- - Kaleidoscope: its History, Theory, and Construction, 

with its application to the Fine and Useful Arts. Second Edition. 
Woodcuts. Post Svo. 5s. 6c/. 

BRITISH ASSOCIATION REPORTS. 8vo. York and Oxford, 

1831-32, 13s. 6 d. Cambridge, 1833, 12s. Edinburgh, 1834,15s. Dublin, 
1835, 13s. 6<7. Bristol, 1836, 12s. Liverpool, 1837, 16s. 6d. Newcastle, 
1838,15s. Birmingham, 1839, 13s. 6d. Glasgow, 1840, 15s. Plymouth, 
1841, 13s. 6d. Manchester, 1842, 10s. &d. Cork, 1843, 12s. York, 1844. 
20^. Cambridge, 1845, 125. Southampton, 1846,155. Oxford, 1847,185. 
Swansea, 1848, 9s. Birmingham, 1849,10s. Edinburgh, 1850,15s. Ipswich, 
1851, 16s. 6d. Belfast, 1852,15s. Hull, 1853, 10s. 6 d. Liverpool, 1854, 18s. 
Glasgow, 1855, 15s.; Cheltenham, 1S56,18s. 










6 


LIST OF WORKS 


BRITISH CLASSICS. A New Series of Standard English 

Authors, printed from the most correct text, and edited with elucida¬ 
tory notes. Published occasionally in demy 8vo. Volumes. 

Already Published. 

GOLDSMITH’S WORKS. Edited by Petef. Cunningham, F.S.A. 
Vignettes. 4 Vols. 30s. 

GIBBON’S DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. 
Edited by William Smith, LL.D. Portrait and Maps. 8 Vols. 60s. 

JOHNSON’S LIVES OF THE ENGLISH POETS. Edited by Peter 
Cunningham, F.S.A. 3 Vols. 22s. 6 d. 

BYRON’S POETICAL WORKS. Edited, with Notes. 6 vols. 45s. 

In Preparation. 

WORKS OF ALEXANDER POPE. Edited by Mr. Croker. Assisted 
by Peter Cunningham, F.S.A. 

WORKS OF DRYDEN. Edited, with Notes. 

HUME’S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. Edited, with Notes. 

LIFE, LETTERS, AND JOURNALS OF JONATHAN SWIFT. Edited 
by John Forster. 

WORKS OF SWIFT. Edited, with Notes. By John Forster. 

WORKS OF JOSEPH ADDISON. Edited, with Notes. 

BROUGHTON’S (Lord) Journey through Albania and other 
Provinces of Turkey in Europe and Asia, to Constantinople, 1809—10. 
Second Edition. Maps and Woodcuts. 2 Vols. 8vo. 30s. 

BUBBLES FROM THE BRUNNEN OF NASSAU. By an Old 

Man. Sixth Edition. 16mo. 5s. 

BUNBURY’S (C. J. F.) Journal of a Residence at the Cape of Good 

Hope; with Excursions into the Interior, and Notes on the Natural 
History and Native Tribes of the Country. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 9s. 

BUNYAN (John) and Oliver Cromwell. Select Biographies. By 

Robert Southey. Post8vo. 2s.6d. 

BUONAPARTE’S (Napoleon) Confidential Correspondence with his 
Brother Joseph, sometime King of Spain. Second Edition. 2 vols. 8vo. 
26s. 

BURGHERSH’S (Lord) Memoir of the Operations of the Allied 
Armies under Prince Schwarzenberg and Marshal Blucher during the 
latter end of 1813—14. 8vo. 21s. 

-Early Campaigns of the Duke of Wellington in 

Portugal and Spain. 8vo. 8s. 6<f. 

BURGON’S (Rev. J. W.) Picture of a Christian Gentleman: a 

Memoir of the late Patrick Fraser Tytler, author of “ The History of 
Scotland.” 8vo. In the Press. 

BURN’S (Lieut-Col.) French and English Dictionary of Naval 
and Military Technical Terms. Third Edition. Crown 8vo. 15s. 

BURNS’ (Robert) Life. By JonN Gibson Lockhart. Fifth 

Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 3s. 

BURR’S (G. D.) Instructions in Practical Surveying, Topogra¬ 
phical Plan Drawing, and on sketching ground without Instruments. 
Third Edition. Woodcuts. PostSvo. 7s. (id. 





PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 


7 


BUXTON’S (Sir Powell) Memoirs. With Selections from his 
Correspondence. By his Son. Fifth Edition. 8vo. 16s.; or, Popular 
Edition. Post 8vo. 8s. 6 d. 

BYRON’S (Lord) Life, Letters, and Journals. By Thomas Moore. 
Cabinet Edition. Plates. 6 Vols. Fcap. 8vo. 18s. 

Life, Letters, and Journals. By Thomas Moore. Popular 
Edition. Portrait and Vignette. One Volume, royal 8vo. 12s. 

- Poetical Works. Library Edition. Portrait. 6 Yols. 

Demy 8vo. 45s. 

-— - Poetical Works. Cabinet Edition. Plates. 10 Yols. 

Fcap. 8vo. 30s. 

—— Poetical Works. Popular Edition. Portrait and Vig- 

nette. One Volume, royal 8vo. 12s. 

- Poetical Works. Travelling Edition. Portrait. Crown 

8 vo. 9s. 

-- Poetical Works. Containing Childe Harold ; Dramas, 

2 Vols.; Tales and Poems; Miscellanies, 2 Vols.; Beppo and Don 

Juan, 2 Vols. Pocket Edition. 8 Vols. 24mo. 20s. Or, separately, 

2s. 6 d. Each volume. 

Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage. With 30 Yignettes. 

Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d. 

- Beauties. Poetry and Prose. A Reading Book for Youth. 

Portrait. Fcap. 8vo. 3s. 6d. 

CALYIN’S (John) Life. With Extracts from his Correspondence. 

By Thomas H. Dyer. Portrait. 8vo. 15s. 

CALLCOTT’S (Lady) Little Arthur’s History of England. 

18th Edition. "With 20 Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6J. 

CARMICHAEL’S (A. N.) Greek Yerbs. Their Formations, 

Irregularities, and Defects. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 8s. 6d. 

CARNARVON’S (Lord) Portugal, Gallicia, and the Basque 
Provinces. From Notes made during a Journey to those Countries. 
Third Edition. Post 8vo. 6s. 

CAMPBELL’S (Lord) Lives of the Lord Chancellors and Keepers 

of the Great Seal of England. From the Earliest Times to the Death of 
Lord Eldon in 1S38. 4th Edition. 10 Vols. Crown 8vo. 6s. each. 

- Life of Lord Chancellor Bacon. Fcap. 8vo. 2 s. 

... - Lives of the Chief Justices of England. From the 

Norman Conquest to the Death of Lord Tenterden. Second Edition. 

3 Vols. 8vo. 42s. 

-- (George) Modern India. A Sketch of the System 

of Civil Government. With some Account of the Natives and Native 
Institutions. Second Edition. 8vo. 16s. 

—- India as it may be. An Outline of a proposed 

Government and Policy. 8vo. 12s. 

- (Thos.) Short Lives of the British Poets. With an 

Essay on English Poetry. Post 8vo. 6s. 

CASTLEREAGH (The) DESPATCHES, from the commencement 

of the official career of the late Viscount Castlereagh to the close of his 
life. Edited by the Marquis of Londonderry. 12Vols.8vo. 14s.each. 


















8 


LIST OF WORKS 


CATHCART’S (Sir George) Commentaries on the War in Russia 
and Germany, 1812-13. Plans. 8vo. 14s. 

-- Military Operations in Kaffraria, which led to the 

Termination of the Kaffir War. Second Edition. Svo. 12s. 

CAVALCASELLE (G. B.) Notices of the Early Flemish Painters; 

Their Lives and Works. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 12s. 

CHANTREY (Sir Francis). Winged Words on Chantrey’s Wood¬ 
cocks. Edited by Jas. P. Muibuead. Etchings. Square 8vo. 10s. Qd. 

CHARMED ROE (The) ; or, The Story of the Little Brother and 
Sister. By Otto Speckteb. Plates. 16mo. 5s. 

CLARENDON (Lord Chancellor) ; Lives of his Friends and 

Contemporaries, illustrative of Portraits in his Gallery. By Lady 
Thebesa Lewis. Portraits. 3 Vols. 8vo. 42s. 

CLAUSEWITZ’S (Carl Yon) Campaign of 1812, in Russia. 

Translated from the German by Lobd Ellesmebe. Map. 8vo. 10s. 6 d . 

CLIVE’S (Lord) Life. By Rev. G. R. Gleig, M.A. Post 8vo. 6s. 

COLERIDGE (Samuel Taylor). Specimens of his Table-Talk. 
Fourth Edition. Portrait. Fcap. 8vo. 6s. 

- (Henry Nelson) Introductions to the Study of 

the Greek Classic Poets. Third Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 6d. 

COLONIAL LIBRARY. [See Home and Colonial Library.] 

COOKERY (Domestic). Founded on Principles of Economy and 
Practical Knowledge, and adapted for Private Families. New Edition. 
Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 

CORNWALLIS (The) Papers and Correspondence during the 

American War,—Administrations in India,—Union with Ireland, and 
Peace of Amiens. From Family Papers, &c. Edited by Chables Ross. 
3 Vols. 8vo. 

CR ABBE’S (Rev. George) Life, Letters, and Journals. By his Son. 

Portrait. Fcap. Svo. 3s. 

-and Poetical Works. Cabinet 

Edition. Plates. 8 Vols. Fcap. Svo. 24s. 

-— and Poetical Works. Popular 

Edition. Plates. One Volume. Royal Svo. 10s. Qd. 

CRAIIv’S (G. L.) Pursuit of Knowledge under Difficulties. 

New Edition. 2 Vols. Post Svo. 12s. 

CURZON’S (Hon. Robert) Visits to the Monasteries of the Levant. 
Fourth Edition. Woodcuts. Post Svo. 15s. 

- Armenia and Erzeroum. A Year on the Frontiers 

of Russia, Tui'key, and Persia. Third Edition. Woodcuts. Post Svo. 
7s. 6d. 










PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 


9 


CUNNINGHAM’S (Allan) Life of Sir David Wilkie. With liis 

Journals and Critical Remarks on Works of Art. Portrait. 3 Vols. 
8 vo. 42s. 

Poems and Songs. Now first collected and 

arranged, with Biographical Notice. 24mo. 2 s. 6d. 

(Capt. J. D.) History of the Sikhs. From 
the Origin of the Nation to the Battle of the Sutlej. Second Edition. 
Maps. 8 vo. 15s. 

- (Peter) London—Past and Present. A Hand¬ 
book to the Antiquities, Curiosities, Churches, Works of Art, Public 
Buildings, and Places connected with interesting and historical asso¬ 
ciations. Second Edition. Post 8 vo. 16s. 

- Modern London. A complete Guide for 

Visitors to the Metropolis. Map. 16mo. 5s. 

- Westminster Abbey. Its Art, Architecture, 

and Associations. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8 vo. Is. 

- Works of Oliver Goldsmith. Edited with 

Notes. Vignettes. 4 vols. 8 vo. 30s. (Murray’s British Classics.) 

-Lives of Eminent English Poets. By Samuel 

Johnson, LL.D. Edited with Notes. 3 vols. 8 vo. 22s. 6 d. (Murray’s 
British Classics.) 

CROKER’S (J. W.) Progressive Geography for Children. 

Fifth Edition. 18mo. Is. Qd. 

-Stories for Children, Selected from the History of 

England. Fifteenth Edition. Woodcuts. 16mo, 2s. Qd. 

Boswell’s Life of Johnson. Including the Tour to the 

Hebrides. Third Edition. Portraits. Royal 8 vo. 15s. 

- Lord Hervey’s Memoirs of the Reign of George the 

Second, from his Accession to the death of Queen Caroline. Edited 
with Notes. Second Edition. Portrait. 2 Vols. 8 vo. 21s. 

Essays on the Early Period of the French Revolution. 

Reprinted from the Quarterly Review. 8vo. 15s. 

Historical Essay on the Guillotine. Fcap. 8vo. Is. 

CROMWELL (Oliver) and John Bunyan. By Robert Southey. 
Post 8 vo. 2s. 6d. 

CROWE’S (J. A.) Notices of the Early Flemish Painters; their 

Lives and Works. Woodcuts. Post 8 vo. 12s. 

CURETON (Rev. W.) Fragments of a very Ancient Recension of 

the Gospels in Syriac, hitherto unknown. Discovered in the Monas¬ 
tery of St. Mary, near the Natron-Lakes. Translated into English. 4to. 

DARWIN’S (Charles) Journal of Researches into the Natural 
History and Geology of the Countries visited during a Voyage round the 
World. Post 8 vo. 8s. Gd. 

DAVIS’S (Sir J. F.) China : A General Description of that Empire 

and its Inhabitants, down to 1857. New Edition. Woodcuts. 2 Vols. 
Post 8 vo. 14s. 

VVY’S (Sir Humphry) Consolations in Travel; or, Last Days 

of a Philosopher. Fifth Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8 vo. 6 s. 

Salmonia; or, Days of Fly Fishing. With some Account 
of the Habits of Fishes belonging to the genus Salmo. Fourth Edition. 
Woodcuts. Fcap. 8 vo. 6 s. 














10 


LIST OF WORKS 


DENNIS’ (George) Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria; or, the 

extant Local Remains of Etruscan Art. Plates. 2Vols. 8vo. 42s. 

DOG-BREAKING ; the Most Expeditious, Certain, and Easy 

Method, whether great excellence or only mediocrity be required. By 
Lieut.-Col. Hutchinson. Third Edition. Revised and enlarged. 
Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 9s. 

DOMESTIC MODERN COOKERY. Founded on Principles of 

Economy and Practical Knowledge, and adapted for Private Families. 
New Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. Svo. 5s. 

DOUGLAS’S (General Sir Howard) Treatise on the Theory 
and Practice of Gunnery. Fourth Edition. Plates. 8vo. 21s. 

-Treatise on the Principle and Construction of Military 

Bridges, and the Passage of Rivers in Military Operations. Third 
Edition. Plates. 8vo. 21s. 

DRAKE’S (Sir Francis) Life, Voyages, and Exploits, by Sea and 
Land. By John Barrow. Third Edition. Post 8vo. 2 s.6d. 

DRINKWATER’S (John) History of the Siege of Gibraltar, 

1779-1783. With a Description and Account of that Garrison from the 
Earliest Periods. Post 8vo. 2s. Gd. 

DRYDEN’S (John) Works. A New Edition, based upon Sir 

Walter Scott’s Edition, entirely revised. Svo. In Preparation. 

DUDLEY’S (Earl of) Letters to the late Bishop of LlandafF. 

Second Edition. Portrait. 8vo. 10s. Gd. 

DUFFERIN’S (Lord) Letters from High Latitudes, being some 
Account of a Yacht Voyage to Iceland, &c., in 1856. Fourth Edition. 
Woodcuts. Post Svo. 

DURHAM’S (Admiral Sir Philip) Naval Life and Services. By 

Capt. Alexander Murray. Svo. 5s. Gd. 

DYER’S (Thomas H.) Life and Letters of John Calvin. Compiled 
from authentic Sources. Portrait. Svo. 15s. 

- New Histoty of Modern Europe. From the taking of 

Constantinople by the Turks to the Close of the War in the Crimea. 
4 Vols. Svo. In Preparation. 

EASTLAKE (Sir Charles) The Schools of Painting in Italy. 

From the Earliest times. From the German of Kugler. Edited, with 
Notes. Third Edition. Illustrated from the Old Masters. 2 Vols. 
Post Svo. 30s. 

EDWARDS’ (W. H.) Voyage up the River Amazon, including a 

Visit to Para. Post Svo. 2s. Gd. 

EGERTON’S (Hon. Capt. Francis) Journal of a Winter’s Tour in 
India; with a Visit to Nepaul. Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Post Svo. 18s. 

ELDON’S (Lord Chancellor) Public and Private Life, with Selec¬ 
tions from his Correspondence and Diaries. By Horace Twiss. Third 
Edition. Portrait. 2 Vols. Post8vo. 21s. 

ELIOT’S (Hon. W. G. C.) Khans of the Crimea. Being a Nar¬ 
rative of an Embassy from Frederick the Great to the Court of Krini 
Gerai. Translated from the German. Post Svo. 6s. 

ELLIS (Mrs.) On the Education of Character, with Hints on Mora 
Training. Post 8vo. 7s. Gd. 

- (Rev. W.) Three Visits to Madagascar. During 1853,- 

and -56, including a Journey to the Capital, with notices of Nat 
History, and Present Civilisation of the People. Map and Woodcuts 






PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 


11 


ELLESMERE’S (Lord) Two Sieges of Vienna by the Turks. 

Translated from the German. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 

Second Campaign of Radetzky in Piedmont. 
The Defence of Temeswar and the Camp of the Ban. From the German. 
Post8vo. 6s. 6d. 

- Life and Character of the Duke of Wellington; 

a Discourse. Fcap. 8vo. Qd. 

Campaign of 1812 in Russia, from the German 

of General Carl Von Clausewitz. Map. 8vo. 10s. Qd. 

- Pilgrimage, and other Poems. Crown 4to. 24s. 

- Essays on History, Biography, Geography, and 

Engineering. 8vo. 12s. 

ELPHINSTONE’S (Hon. Mountstuart) History of Tndia—the 

Hindoo and Maliomedan Periods. Fourth Edition. "With an Index. 
Map. 8vo. 18s. 

ELWIN’S (Rev. W.) Lives of Eminent British Poets. From 

Chaucer to Wordsworth. 4 Yols. 8vo. In Preparation. 

ENGLAND (History of) from the Peace of Utrecht to the Peace 

of Versailles, 1713—83. By Lord Mahon. Lib-ary Edition, 7 Vols. 
8vo, 93s.; or, Popular Edition, 7 Vols. Post 8vo. 35s. 

From the First Invasion by the Romans, 
down to the 14th year of Queen Victoria’s Reign. By Mrs. Markham. 
98 th Edition. Woodcuts. 12mo. 6s. 

-As it is : Social, Political, and Industrial, in the 

19th Century. By W. Johnston. 2 Vols, Post 8vo. 18s. 

and France under the House of Lancaster. 
With an Introductory View of the Early Reformation. Second Edition. 
8vo, 15s. 

ENGLISHWOMAN IN AMERICA. Post 8vo. 10s. 6tl. 

- RUSSIA: or, Impressions of Manners 

and Society during a Ten Years’ Residence in that Country. Fifth 
Thousand. Woodcuts. Post8vo. 10s. 6d. 

ERSKINE’S (Capt., R.N.) Journal of a Cruise among the Islands 
of the Western Pacific, including the Fejees, and others inhabited by 
the Polynesian Negro Races. Plates. 8vo. 16s. 

ESKIMAUX (The) and English Vocabulary, for the use of Travellers 
in the Arctic Regions. 16mo. 3s. 6d. 

ESSAYS FROM “ THE TIMES.” Being a Selection from the 

Literary Papers which have appeared in that Journal. 7th Thousand. 
2 vols. Fcap. 8vo. 8s. 

EXETER’S (Bishop of) Letters to the late Charles Butler, on the 

Theological parts of his Book of the Roman Catholic Church; with 
Remarks on certain Works of Dr. Milner and Dr. Lingard, and on some 
parts of the Evidence of Dr. Doyle. Second Edition. Svo. 16s. 

FAIRY RING (The), A Collection of Tales and Stories for Young 
Persons. From the German. By J.E. Taylor. Illustrated by Richard 
Doyle. Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 

FALKNElt’S (Fred.) Muck Manual for the Use of Farmers. A 
Treatise on the Nature and Value of Manures. Second Edition, with a 
Glossary of Terms and an Index. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 












12 


LIST OF WORKS 


FAMILY RECEIPT-BOOK. A Collection of a Thousand Valuable 

and Useful Receipts. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 6d. 

FANCOURT’S (Col.) History of Yucatan, from its Discovery 

to the Close of the 17th Century. With Map. 8vo. 10s. 6J. 

FEATHERSTONHAUGH’S (G. W.) Tour through the Slave States 
of North America, from the River Potomac, to Texas and the Frontiers 
of Mexico. Plates. 2 Vols. 8vo. 26s. 

FELLOWS’ (Sir Charles) Travels and Researches in Asia Minor, 
more particularly in the Province of Lycia. New Edition. Plates. Post 
8vo. 9s. 

FERGUSSON’S (James) Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis 

Restored: an Essay on Ancient Assyrian and Persian Architecture. 
With 45 Woodcuts. 8vo. 16s. 

- Handbook of Architecture. Being a 

Concise and Popular Account of the Different Styles prevailing in all 
Ages and Countries in the World. With a Description of the most 
remarkable Buildings. Third Thousand. With 850 Illustrations. 8vo. 

FERRIER’S (T. P.) Caravan Journeys in Persia, Affghanistan, 

Herat, Turkistan, and Beloocliistan, with Descriptions of Meshed, Balk, 
and Candahar, and Sketches of the Nomade Tribes of Central Asia. 
Second Edition. Map. 8vo. 21s. 

- History of the Afghans. Map. 8vo. 21s. 

FEUERBACH’S Remarkable German Crimes and Trials. Trans¬ 

lated from the German by Lady Duff Gordon. 8vo. 12s. 

FISHER’S (Rev. George) Elements of Geometry, for the Use of 
Schools. Fifth Edition. 18mo. Is. 6d. 

-First Principles of Algebra, for the Use of Schools. 

Fifth Edition. 18mo. Is. 6(L 

FLOWER GARDEN (The). An Essay. By Rev. Thos. James. 

Reprinted from the “ Quarterly Review.” Fcap. 8vo. Is. 

FORD’S (Richard) Handbook for Spain, Andalusia, Ronda, Valencia, 
Catalonia, Granada, Gallicia, Arragon, Navarre, &c. Third Edition. 
2 Vols. Post8vo. 30s. 

-Gatherings from Spain. Post 8vo. 6s. 

FORSTER’S (John) Biographical and Historical Essays. 2 Vols. 

Post 8vo. 

FORSYTH’S (William) Hortensius, or the Advocate : an Historical 
Essay on the Office and Duties of an Advocate. Post 8vo. 12s. 

- History of Napoleon at St. Helena. From the 

Letters and Journals of Sir Hudson Lowe. Portrait and Maps. 3 Vols. 
8vo. 45s. 

FORTUNE’S (Robert) Narrative of Two Visits to China, between 

the years 1843-52, with full Descriptions of the Culture of the Tea 
Plant. Third Edition. Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 18s. 

Residence among the Chinese : Inland, on the 

Coast, and at Sea, during 1853-56. Woodcuts. 8vo. 16s. 

FRANCE (History of). From the Conquest by the Gauls to the 

Death of Louis Philippe. By Mrs. Markham. oQth Thousand. Wood¬ 
cuts. 12mo. 6s. 









PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 


13 


FRENCH (The) in Algiers; The Soldier of the Foreign Legion— 
and the Prisoners of Abd-el-Kadir. Translated by Lady Duff Gordon. 
Post 8vo. 2s. 6c?. 

GALTON’S (Francis) Art of Travel; or, Hints on the Shifts and 

Contrivances available in Wild Countries. Second Edition. Wood- 
cuts. Post 8vo. 6s. 


GEOGRAPHICAL (The) Journal. Published by the Royal Geo¬ 
graphical Society of London. 8vo. 

GERMANY (History of). From the Invasion by Marius, to the 
present time. On the plan of Mrs. Markham. Ninth Thousand. Woodcuts. 
12mo. 6s. 

GIBBON’S (Edward) Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. A 

New Edition. Preceded by his Autobiography. Edited with Notes 
by Dr. Wm. Smith. Maps. 8 Yols. 8vo. 60s. 

- The Student’s Gibbon; Being the History of the 

Decline and Fall, Abridged, incorporating the Researches of Recent 
Commentators. By Dr. Wm. Smith. Sixth Thousand. Woodcuts. Post 
8vo. 7s. 6d. 

GIFFARD’S (Edward) Deeds of Naval Daring; or, Anecdotes of 

the British Navy. 2 Yols. Fcap. 8vo. 

GISBORNE’S (Thomas) Essays on Agriculture. Third Edition. 

Post 8vo. 

GLADSTONE’S (W. E.) Prayers arranged from the Liturgy for 

Family Use. Second Edition. 12mo. 2 s.6d. 

GOLDSMITH’S (Oliver) Works. A New Edition. Printed from 

the last editions revised by the Author. Edited by Peter Cunning¬ 
ham. Vignettes. 4 Vols. 8vo. 30s. (Murray’s British Classics.) 

GLEIG’S (Rev. G. R.) Campaigns of the British Army at Washing¬ 
ton and New Orleans. Post 8vo. 2s. 6 d. 

-— Story of the Battle of Waterloo. Compiled from Public 

and Authentic Sources. Post 8vo. 5s. 

- Narrative of Sir Robert Sale’s Brigade in Afghanistan, 

with an Account of the Seizure and Defence of Jellalabad, Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 

—-Life of Robert Lord Clive. Post 8vo. 5s. 

-Life and Letters of General Sir Thomas Munro. Post 

8vo. 5s. 

GORDON’S (Sir Alex. Duff) Sketches of German Life, and Scenes 

from the War of Liberation. From the German. Post 8vo. 6s. 

-(Lady Duff) Amber-Witch : the most interesting 

Trial for Witchcraft ever known. From the German. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 

-- French in Algiers. I. The Soldier of the Foreign 

Legion. 2. The Prisoners of Abd-el-Kadir. From the French. 
Post 8vo. 2s. 6 d. 

--Remarkable German Crimes and Trials. From the 

Gennan of Fuerbach. 8vo. 12s. 


GRANT’S (Asaiiel) Nestorians, or the Lost Tribes ; containin 
Evidence of their Identity, their Manners. Customs, and Ceremonies , 
with Sketches of Travel in Ancient Assyria, Armenia, and Mesopotamia ; 
and Illustrations of Scripture Prophecy. Third Edition. Fcap 8vo. fc’s. 


bo ■ 












14 


LIST OP WORKS 


GRENVILLE (The) PAPERS, Being the Public and Private 

Correspondence of George Grenville, his Friends and Contemporaries, 
during a period of 30 years. — Including his Diary of Political, 
Events while First Lord of the Treasury. Edited, with Notes, hy 
W. J. Smith. 4 Vols. 8vo. 16s. each. 

GREEK GRAMMAR FOR SCHOOLS. Abridged from Matthise. 

By the Bishop of London. Ninth Edition, revised by Rev. J. Edwards. 
12mo. 3s. 

GREY’S (Sir George) Polynesian Mythology, and Ancient 
Traditional History of the New Zealand Race. "Woodcuts. Post 
8vo. 10s. 6d. 

GROTE’S (George) History of Greece. From the Earliest Times 

to the close of the generation contemporary with the death of Alexander 
the Great. Third Edition. Maps and Index. 12 vols. 8vo. 16s. each. 

GROSVENOR’S (Lord Robert) Leaves from my Journal during 
the Summer of 1851. Second Edition. Plates. Post 8vo. 3s. 6d. 

GUSTAVUS VASA (History of), King of Sweden. With Extracts 

from his Correspondence. Portrait. 8vo. 10s. 6d. 

HALLAM’S (Henry) Constitutional History of England, from the 

Accession of Henry the Seventh to the Death of George the Second. 
Seventh Edition. 3 Vols. 8vo. 30s. 

-— History of Europe during the Middle Ages. 

Tenth Edition. 3 Vols. 8vo. 30s. 

- Introduction to the Literary History of Europe, during 

the 16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries. Fourth Edition. 3 Vols. 8vo. 36s. 

-Literary Essays and Characters. Selected from the 

last work. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 

- Historical Works. Containing the History of Eng¬ 
land,—The Middle Ages of Europe,—and the Literary History of 
Europe. Cabinet Edition. 10 Vols. Post 8vo. 6s. each. 
HAMILTON’S (James) Wanderings in Northern Africa, Benghazi, 
Gyrene, the Oasis of Siwah, &c. Second Edition. Woodcuts. PostSvo. 12s. 

- (Walter) Hindostan, Geographically, Statistically, 

and Historically. Map. 2 Vols. 4to. 94s. 6J. 

HAMPDEN’S (Bishop) Essay on the Philosophical Evidence of 

Christianity, or the Credibility obtained to a Scripture Revelation 
from its Coincidence with the Facts of Nature. 8vo. 9s. 6d. 

HARCOURT’S (Edward Vernon) Sketch of Madeira ; with Map 

and Plates. Post 8vo. 8s. 6 d. 

HART’S ARMY LIST. (Quarterly and Annually.) 8vo. 

HAY’S (J. H. Drummond) Western Barbary, its wild Tribes and 

savage Animals. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 

HEBER (Bishop) Parish Sermons; on the Lessons, the Gospel, 

or the Epistle, for every Sunday in the Year, and for Week-day Festivals. 
Sixth Edition. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 16s. 

-Sermons Preached in England. Second Edition. 8vo. 9s. 6d. 

*- Hymns written and adapted for the weekly Church 

Service of the Year. Twelfth Edition. 16mo. 2s. 

- Poetical Works. Fifth Edition. Portrait. Fcap. 8vo. 

7s. Qd. r 

--Journey through the Upper Provinces of India, From 

Calcutta to Bombay, with a Journey to Madras and the Southern Pro¬ 
vinces. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 12s. 












PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 


15 


HAND-BOOK OF TRAVEL-TALK; or, Conversations in 

English, German, French, and Italian. I 81110 . 3s. 6 cL 

- NORTH GERMANY— Holland, Belgium, and 

the Rhine to Switzerland. Map. Post8vo. 10s. 

SOUTH GERMANY—Bavaria, Austria, Salzberg, 

the Austrian and Bavarian Alps, the Tyrol, and the Danube, from Ulm 
to the Black Sea. Map. Post 8 vo. 10s. 

PAINTING—the German, Flemish, and Dutch 

Schools. From the German of Kijglek. A New Edition. Edited by 
Du. Waagen. Woodcuts. Post 8 vo. (In the Press.) 

-SWITZERLAND—the Alps of Savoy, and Piedmont. 

Maps. Post 8 vo. 9s. 

- FRANCE—Normandy, Brittany, the French 

Alps, the Rivers Loire, Seine, Rhone, and Garonne, Dauphine, Provence, 
and the Pyrenees. Maps. Post 8 vo. 10s. 

-- SPAIN—Andalusia, Ronda, Granada, Valencia, 

Catalonia, Gallicia, Arragon, and Navarre. Maps. 2 Vols. Post 8 vo. 30s. 

-PORTUGAL, LISBON, &c. Map. Post 8vo. 95. 

TAINTING —Spanish and French Schools. By 

Sir Edmund Head, Bart. Woodcuts. Post 8 vo. 12s. 

- NORTH ITALY—Florence, Sardinia, Genoa, the 

Riviera, Venice, Lombardy, and Tuscany. Map. Post 8 vo. 2 Vols. 12s. 

— - CENTRAL ITALY —South Tuscany and the 

Papal States. Map. Post 8vo. 7s. 

— - ROME—AND ITS ENVIRONS. Map. Post 

8 vo. 9s. 

-SOUTH ITALY—Naples, Pompeii, Herculaneum, 

Vesuvius, &c. Map. Post 8 vo. 

PAINTING—the Italian Schools. From the Ger¬ 
man of Kugler. Edited by Sir Charles Eastlake, R. A. Woodcuts. 
2 Vols. Post 8 vo. 30s. 

-ITALIAN PAINTERS: (A SHORT BIOGRA¬ 

PHICAL dictionary of.) With a Chart. Post 8 vo. 6 s. 6 d. 

-GREECE—the Ionian Islands, Albania, Thessaly, 

and Macedonia. Maps. Post 8 vo. 15s. 

- TURKEY —Malta, Asia Minor, Constantinople, 

Armenia, Mesopotamia, &c. Maps. Post 8 vo. (In the Press.) 

— - EGYPT—Thebes, the Nile, Alexandria, Cairo, 

the Pyramids, Mount Sinai, &c. Map. Post Svo. 15s. 

-DENMARK— Norway and Sweden. Maps. Post 

8 vo. 

- RUSSIA —The Baltic and Finland. Maps. Post 

Svo. 12s. 

- LONDON, Past and Present. Being an Alpha¬ 
betical Account of all the Antiquities, Curiosities, Churches, Works 
of Art, Places, and Streets connected with Interesting and Historical 
Associations. Post Svo. 16s. 

- MODERN LONDON. A Guide to all objects 

of interest in the Metropolis. Map. 16mo. os. 

ENVIRONS OF LONDON. Including a Circle of 

30 Miles round St. Paul’s. Maps. Post 8 vo. (In preparation.) 

























16 


LIST OF WORKS 


HANDBOOK OF DEVON AND CORNWALL. Maps. Post 

8 vo. 6s. 

_ WILTS, DORSET, AND SOMERSET. Map. Post 

8 vo. 6s. 

_KENT, SUSSEX, SURREY, HANTS, and the 

Isle of Wight. Maps. Post 8vo. {Nearly Beady.) 

- WESTMINSTER ABBEY—its Art, Architecture, 

and Associations. Woodcuts. 16mo. Is. 

_PARIS. Post 8vo. (In Preparation.) 

- -- SYRIA AND THE HOLY LAND. Maps and 

Plans. Post Svo. Nearly Beady. 

. -INDIA. Part 1. Containing Bombay and Madras. 

Post Svo. {Nearly Beady.) 

CATHEDRALS OF ENGLAND. Post Svo. In 

Prepara tion. 

- - SICILY. Maps and Plans. Post Svo. In the Press. 

-FAMILIAR QUOTATIONS. Chiefly from English 

Authors. Second Edition. Fcap. Svo. 5s. 

-ARCHITECTURE. Being a Concise and Popular 

Account of the Different Styles prevailing in all Ages and Countries 
By James Fergusson. Third Thousand. With 850 Illustrations. 8vo. 

-- ARTS OF THE MIDDLE AGES AND RE- 

naissance. By M. Jules Labarte. With 200 Illustrations. 8vo. 18s. 

HEAD’S (Sir Francis) Rough Notes of some Rapid Journeys across 
the Pampas and over the Andes. Post 8vo. 2s. Gd. 

- Descriptive Essays: contributed to the “ Quarterly 

Review.” 2 Vols. Post Svo. ISs. 

-- Bubbles from the Brunnen of Nassau. By an Old Man. 

Sixth Edition. 16mo. 5s. 

-Emigrant. Sixth Edition. Fcap. Svo. 2s. 6d. 

-Stokers and Pokers; or, the London and North-Western 

Railway. Post 8vo. 2 s. Gd. 

-Defenceless State of Great Britain. Post 8vo. 12s. 

-Faggot of French Sticks; or. Sketches of Paris. 

New Edition. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 12 s. 

-Fortnight in Ireland. Second Edition. Map. 8vo. 12s. 

- _(Sir George) Forest Scenes and Incidents in Canada. 

Second Edition. Post 8vo. 10s. 

- Home Tour through the Manufacturing Districts of 

England, Scotland, and Ireland, including the Channel Islands, and the 
Isle of Man. Third Edition. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 12s. 

- (Sir Edmund) Handbook of Painting—the Spanish 

and French Schools. With Illustrations. Post Svo. 

- Shall and Will; or, Two Chapters on Future Auxiliary 

Verbs. Second Edition, Enlarged. Fcap. 8vo. 





























PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 


17 


HEIRESS (The) in Her Minority ; or, The Progress of Character. 

By the Author of “ Bertha’s Journal.” 2 Yols. 12mo. 18s. 

HERODOTUS. A New English Version. Edited tvith Notes, 

illustrating the History and Geography of Herodotus, from the most 
recent sources of information. By Rev. G. Rawlinson, Colonel 
Rawlinson, and Sib J. G. Wilkinson. Maps. 4 Vols. 8vo. 18 s. each. 

HERVEY’S (Lord) Memoirs of the Reign of George the Second, 
from his Accession to the Death of Queen Caroline. Edited, with Notes, 
by Mr. Croker. Second Edition. Portrait. 2 Vols. 8vo. 21s. 

HICKMAN’S (Wm.) Treatise on the Law and Practice of Naval 

Courts Martial. 8vo. 10s. 6d. 

HILLARD’S (G. S.) Six Months in Italy. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 16s. 
HISTORY OF ENGLAND AND FRANCE under the House 

of Lancaster. With an Introductory View of the Early Reformation. 
Second Edition. 8vo. 15s. 

HOLLAND’S (Rev. W. B.) Psalms and Hymns, selected and 
adapted to the various Solemnities of the Church. Third Edition. 24mo. 
Is. 3d. 

HOLLWAY’S (J. G.) Month in Norway. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 

HONEY BEE (The). An Essay. By Rev. Thomas James. 

Reprinted from the “ Quarterly Review.” Fcap. 8vo. Is. 

HOOK’S (Rev. Dr.) Church Dictionary. Seventh Edition. 8vo. 16s. 

Discourses on the Religious Controversies of the Day. 

8vo. 9s. 

-(Theodore) Life. An Essay. By J. G. Lockhart. Reprinted 

from the “ Quarterly Review.” Fcap. 8vo. Is. 

HOOKER’S (Dr. J. D.) Himalayan Journals; or, Notes of an Oriental 

Naturalist in Bengal, the Sikkim and Nepal Himalayas, the Khasia 
Mountains, &c. Second Edition. Woodcuts. 2 vols. Post8vo. 18s. 

HOOPER’S (Lieut.) Ten Months among the Tents of the Tuski ; 
with Incidents of an Arctic Boat Expedition in Search of Sir Johu 
Franklin. Plates, 8vo. 14s, 

HORACE (Works of). Edited by Dean Milman. With 300 

Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 21s. 

- (Life of). By Dean Milman. Woodcuts, and coloured 

Borders. 8vo. 9s. 

HOSPITALS AND SISTERHOODS. By a Lady. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 

HOUSTOUN’S (Mrs.) Yacht Voyage to Texas and the Gulf of 
Mexico. Plates. 2 Vols. Post8vo. 21s. 





IS 


LIST OF WORKS 


HOME AND COLONIAL LIBRARY. Complete in 70 Parts. 

Post 8vo, 2s. 6d. each, or bound in 34 Volumes, cloth. 


CONTENTS OF THE SERIES. 

THE BIBLE IN SPAIN. By George Borrow. 

JOURNALS IN INDIA. By Bishop IIeber. 

TRAVELS IN THE HOLY LAND. By Captains Irby and Mangles. 
THE SIEGE OF GIBRALTAR. By John Drinkwater. 

MOROCCO AND THE MOORS. By J. Drummond Hay. 

LETTERS FROM THE BALTIC. By a Lady. 

THE AMBER-WITCH. By Lady Duff Gordon. 

OLIVER CROMWELL & JOHN BUNYAN. By Robert Southey. 
NEW SOUTH WALES. By Mrs. Meredith. 

LIFE OF SIR FRANCIS DRAKE. By John Barrow. 

FATHER RIPA’S MEMOIRS OF THE COURT OF CHINA. 

A RESIDENCE IN THE WEST INDIES. By M.G. Lewis. 
SKETCHES OF PERSIA. By Sir John Malcolm. 

THE FRENCH IN ALGIERS. By Lady Duff Gordon. 

VOYAGE OF A NATURALIST. By Charles Darwin. 

HISTORY OF THE FALL OF THE JESUITS. 

LIFE OF LOUIS PRINCE OF CONDE. By Lord Mahon. 

GIPSIES OF SPAIN. By George Borrow. 

THE MARQUESAS. By Hermann Melville. 

LIVONIAN TALES. By a Lady. 

MISSIONARY LIFE IN CANADA. By Rev. J. Abbott. 

SALE’S BRIGADE IN AFFGHANISTAN. By Rev. G. R. Gleig. 
LETTERS FROM MADRAS. By a Lady. 

HIGHLAND SPORTS. By Charles St. John. 

JOURNEYS ACROSS THE PAMPAS. By Sir F. B. Head. 
GATHERINGS FROM SPAIN. By Richard Ford. 

SIEGES OF VIENNA BY THE TURKS. By Lord Ellesmere. 
SKETCHES OF GERMAN LIFE. By Sir A. Gordon. 
ADVENTURES IN THE SOUTH SEAS. By Hermann Melville. 
STORY OF BATTLE OF WATERLOO. By Rev. G. R. Gleig. 

A VOYAGE UP THE RIVER AMAZON. By W. H. Edwards. 
THE WAYSIDE CROSS. By Capt. Milman. 

MANNERS & CUSTOMS OF INDIA. By Rev. C. Acland. 
CAMPAIGNS AT WASHINGTON. By Rev. G. R. Gleig. 
ADVENTURES IN MEXICO. By G. F. Ruxton. 

PORTUGAL AND GALLICIA. By Lord Carnarvon. 

LIFE OF LORD CLIVE. By Rev. G. R. Gleig. 

BUSH LIFE IN AUSTRALIA. By II. W. Haygarth. 

THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF HENRY STEFFENS. 

SHORT LIVES OF THE POETS. By Thomas Campbell. 
HISTORICAL ESSAYS. By Lord Mahon. 

LONDON & NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY. By Sir F. B. Head. 
ADVENTURES IN THE LIBYAN DESERT. By Bayle St. John. 
A RESIDENCE AT SIERRA LEONE. By a Lady. 

LIFE OF GENERAL MUNRO. By Rev. G. R. Gleig. 

MEMOIRS OF SIR FOWELL BUXTON. By his Son. 



PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY 


19 


HUME (The Student’s). A History of England, for the Upper 
Classes in Schools, based upon Hume’s Work, and continued to the 
Present Time. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. ( Uniform with The Student's 
Gibbon.) 

HUTCHINSON (Colonel) on Dog-Breaking; the most expe¬ 
ditious, certain, and easy Method, whether great Excellence or only 
Mediocrity be required. Third Edition. Revised and enlarged. Woodcuts. 
Post 8vo. 9s. 

INKERSLEY’S (Thos.) Gothic Architecture in France; Being an 

Inquiry into the Chronological Succession of the Romanesque and 
Pointed Styles; with Notices of some of the principal Buildings, and 
an Index. 8vo. 12s. 

IRBY AND MANGLES’ Travels in Egypt, Nubia, Syria, and 

the Holy Land, including a Journey round the Dead Sea, and through 
the Country east of the Jordan. Post 8vo. 2s. 6<i. 

JAMES’ (Rev. Thomas) Fables of iEsop. A New Translation, chiefly 
from the Original Greek, with Historical Preface. With 100 Wood- 
cuts by John Tenniel. Twenty-sixth Thousand. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 

JAMESON’S (Mrs.) Memoirs of the Early Italian Painters, and 

of the Progress of Italian Painting in Italy. Tenth Edition. With 
70 Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 6s. 

JAPAN AND THE JAPANESE. Described from the Accounts 

of Recent Dutch Travellers. New Edition. Post 8vo. 6s. 

JARDINE’S (David) Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot. New 
Edition. Post Svo. 7s. 6d. 

JERVIS’S (Capt.) Manual of Operations in the Field, for the Use of 
Officers. Post8vo. 9s. 6d. 

JESSE’S (Edward) Visits to Spots of Interest in the Vicinity of 

Windsor and Eton. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 12s. 

-- Scenes and Occupations of Country Life. With Recol¬ 

lections of Natural History. Third Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 6s. 

- Gleanings in Natural History. With Anecdotes of the 

Sagacity and Instinct of Animals. Eighth Edition. Fcap. Svo. 6s. 

JOHNSON’S (Dr. Samuel) Life : By James Boswell. Including 
the Tour to the Hebrides, with Notes by Sir W. Scott. Edited by 
the late Mr. Croker. Third Edition. Portraits. Royal 8vo. 15s. 

-—— Lives of the most eminent English Poets. A New 

Edition. Edited by Peter Cunningham. 3 vols. 8vo. 22s. 6J. 
(Murray’s British Classics.) 

JOHNSTON’S (Wm.) England as it is : Social, Political, and 

Industrial, in the Middle of the 19th Century. 2 Yols. Post 8vo. 18s. 

JOURNAL OF A NATURALIST. Fourth Edition. Woodcuts. 

Post 8vo. 9s. 6d. 

JOWETT’S (Rev. B.) Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles to the 
Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans. With Notes and Dissertations. 
Second Edition. 2 Yols. 8vo. 

C 2 






20 


LIST OF WORKS 


KEN’S (Bishop) Life. By A Layman. Second Edition. Portrait. 

2 Vols. 8vo. 18s. 

-Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed. Extracted from his 

“Practice of Divine Love.” New Edition. Fcap. Is. 6d. 

-Approach to the Holy Altar. Extracted from his “ Manual 

of Prayer ” and “ Practice of Divine Love.” New Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 
Is. 6<Z. 

KING’S (Rev. S. W.) Tour through the Italian Valleys of the 

Pennine Alps. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 

KING EDWARD VIth’s Latin Grammar; or, an Introduction 

to the Latin Tongue, for the Use of Schools. 12 tli Edition. 12mo. 3s. 6 d. 

-First Latin Book; or, the Accidence, 

Syntax and Prosody, with an English Translation for the Use of Junior 
Classes. Second Edition. 12mo. 2s. 

KNAPP’S (J. A.) English Roots and Ramifications; or, the 

Derivation and Meaning of Divers Words. Fcap. 8vo. 4s. 

KUGLER’S (Dr. Franz) Handbook to the History of Painting 

(the Italian Schools). Translated from the German. Edited, with 
Notes, by Sip. Charles Eastlake. Third Edition. Woodcuts. 2 Yols. 
Post 8vo. 30s. 

- (the German, Dutch, and 

Flemish Schools). Translated from the German. A New Editum. 
Edited, with Notes. By Dr,. Waagen. Woodcuts. PostSvo. Nearly 
Beady, 

LABARTE’S (M. Jules) Handbook of the Arts of the Middle Ages 

and Renaissance. With 200 Woodcuts. Svo. ISs. 

LABORDE’S (Leon De) Journey through Arabia Petraea, to Mount 
Sinai, and the Excavated City of Petriea,—the Edom of the Prophecies. 
Second Edition. With Plates. 8vo. 18s. 

LANE'S (E. W.) Arabian Nights. Translated, with Explanatory 

Notes. With Woodcuts. Royal Svo. 21s. 

LATIN GRAMMAR (King Edward the VIth’s.) For the Use 

of Schools. Twelfth Edition. 12mo. 3s. 6 d. 

- First Book (King Edward VI.); or, the Accidence, 

Syntax, and Prosody, with English Translation for Junior Classes. 
Second Edition. 12ruo. 2s. 

LAYARD’S (A. H.) Nineveh and its Remains. Being a Nar¬ 
rative of Researches and Discoveries amidst the Ruins of Assyria. 
With an Account of the Chaldean Christians of Kurdistan; the Yezedis, 
or Devil-worsliippers; and an Enquiry into the Manners and Arts of 
the Ancient Assyrians. Sixth Edition. Plates and Woodcuts. 2 Yols. 
Svo. 36s. 

-Nineveh and Babylon ; being the Result 

of a Second Expedition to Assyria. Fourteenth Thousand. Plates. 
Svo. 21s. Or Fine Paper, 2 Vols. Svo. 30s. 

- Popular Account of Nineveh. 15(7t Edition. With 

Woodcuts. Post8vo. 5s. 

LESLIE’S (C. R.) Handbook for Young Painters. With Illustra¬ 
tions. Post Svo. 10s. 6 d. 










PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 


21 


LEAKE’S (Col. W. Martin) Topography of Athens, with Remarks 

on its Antiquities; to which is added, the Demi of Attica. Second 
Edition. Plates. 2 Yols. Svo. 30s. 

Travels in Northern Greece. Maps. 4 Yols. Svo. 60 s. 
Disputed Questions of Ancient Geography. Map. 

Svo. 6s. 6c?. 

— Numismata Hellenica. A Catalogue of Greek Coins. 

With Map and Appendix. 4to. 63s. 

Peloponnesiaca : A Supplement to Travels in the Morea. 

8 vo. 15s. 

-- Thoughts on the Degradation of Science in England. 

8 vo. 3s. 6c?. 

LETTERS FROM THE SHORES OF THE BALTIC. By a 

Lady. Post 8vo. 2s. 6c?. 

- Madras; or, First Impressions of Life and 

Manners in India. By a Lady. Post Svo. 2s. 6il. 

Sierra Leone, written to Friends at Home. 

By a Lady. Edited by Mrs. Norton. Post 8vo. 6s. 

- Head Quarters; or, The Realities of the War 

in the Crimea. By a Staff Officer. Popular Edition. Plans. 
Post Svo. 6s. 

LEXINGTON (The) PAPERS; or, Some Account of the Courts 

of London and Vienna at the end of the 17th Century. Edited by Hon. 
H. Manners Sutton. Svo. 14s. 

LEWIS’ (Sir G. C.) Essay on the Government of Dependencies. 

8 vo. 12s. 

_— Glossary of Provincial Words used in Herefordshire and 

some of the adjoining Counties. 12mo. 4s. 6c?. 

(Lady Theresa) Friends and Contemporaries of the 

Lord Chancellor Clarendon, illustrative of Portraits in his Gallery. 
With a Descriptive Account of the Pictures, and Origin of the Collec¬ 
tion. Portraits. 3 Yols. 8vo. 42s. 

— (M. G.) Journal of a Residence among the Negroes in the 

• West Indies. Post Svo. 2s. 6c?. 

LIDDELL’S (Dean) History of Rome. From the Earliest Times 

to the Establishment of the Empire. With the History of Literature 
and Art. Library Edition. 2 Vols. Svo. 28s. 

- SCHOOL HISTORY OF ROME. Abridged from 

the Larger Work. Eighth Thousand. With 100 Woodcuts. Post Svo. 
7s. 6c?. [ Uniform with Dr. Wm. Smith’s History of Greece]. 

LINDSAY’S (Lord) Lives of the Lindsays; or, a Memoir of the 

Houses of Crawford and Balcarres. With Extracts from Official Papers 
and Personal Narratives. Second Edition. 3 Vols. 8vo. 24s. 

-Report of the Claim of James, Earl of Crawfurd and 

Balcarres, to the Original Dukedom of Montrose, created in 1488. 
Folio. 15s. 

LITTLE ARTHUR’S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. By Lady 

Callcott. Eighteenth Edition. With 20 Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 
2 s. 6c?. 
















22 


LIST OF WORKS 


LIVINGSTONE’S (Rev. Dr.) Missionary Travels and Researches 

in South Africa; including a Sketch of Sixteen Years’ Residence in 
the Inferior of Africa, and a Journey from the Cape of Good Hope to 
Loanda on the West Coast; thence across the Continent, down the 
River Zambesi, to the Eastern Ocean. Thirtieth Thousand. Map, 
Plates, and Index. 8vo. 21s. 

LIVONIAN TALES.—The Disponent.—The Wolves.—The Jewess. 
By the Author of “ Letters from the Baltic.” Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 

LOCKHART’S (J. G.) Ancient Spanish Ballads. Historical and 
Romantic. Translated, with Notes. Illustrated Edition. 4to. Or, 
Popular Edition. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 

-—-- Life of Robert Burns. Fifth Edition. Fcap. 8 vo. 3#. 

LOUDON’S (Mrs.) Instructions in Gardening for Ladies. With 
Directions and Calendar of Operations for Every Month. Eighth 
Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 

.— -Modern Botany; a Popular Introduction to the 

Natural System of Plants. Second Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 

LOWE’S (Sir Hudson) Letters and Journals, during the Captivity 
of Napoleon at St. Helena. By William Forsyth. Portrait. 3 Yols. 
8vo. 45s. 

LUCKNOW; A Lady’s Diary of the Siege of Lucknow. Written 

for the Perusal of Friends at Home. Fcap. 8vo. 4s. 6d. 

LYELL’S (Sir Charles) Principles of Geology; or, the Modern 
Changes of the Earth and its Inhabitants considered as illustrative of 
Geology. Ninth Edition. Woodcuts. 8vo. 18s. 

- Manual of Elementary Geology ; or, the Ancient Changes 

of the Earth and its Inhabitants illustrated by its Geological Monuments. 
Fifth Edition. Woodcuts. 8vo. 14s. 

-Visits to the United States, 1841-46. Second Edition. 

Plates. 4 Vols. PostSvo. 24s. 

MAHON’S (Lord) History of England, from the Peace of Utrecht 
to the Peace of Versailles, 1713—83. Fourth Library Edition. 7 Yols. 
8vo. 93s. 

History of England, 1713—S3. Cabinet Edition. 7 Vols. 

Post 8vo. 35s. 

- “ Forty-Five ; ” a Narrative of the Rebellion in Scot¬ 

land. Post 8vo. 3s. 

The Rise of our Indian Empire. Being the History 
of British India from its Origin till the Peace of 1783. Extracted from 
his “ History of England.” Post 8vo. 3s. 6d. 

-History of the War of the Succession in Spain. Second 

Edition. Map. 8vo. 15s. 

- Spain under Charles the Second; or, Extracts from the 

Correspondence of the Hon. Alexander Stanhope, British Minister at 
Madrid from 1690 to 1700. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 6s. Qd. 

- Life of Louis Prince of Conde, surnamed the Great. 

Post 8vo. 6s. 

- Life of Belisarius. ’ Second Edition. Post 8 vo. 10s. 6d. 

- Historical and Critical Essays. Post 8 vo. 65 . 

-- Story of Joan of Arc. Fcap. 8 vo. Is. 

—-- Address Delivered at Manchester, Leeds, and Bir¬ 

mingham. Fcap. 8vo. Is. 

















PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 


23 


M c CULLOCH’S (J. R.) Collected Edition of Ricardo’s Political 

Works. With Notes and Memoir. Second Edition. 8vo. 16s. 

MALCOLM’S (Sir John) Sketches of Persia. Third Edition. 

Post 8vo. 6s. 

MANSEL’S (Rev. H. L.) The Limits of Religious Thought 

Examined. Being the Bampton Lectures for 1S58. 8vo. 

MANTELL’S (Gideon A.) Thoughts on Animalcules; or, the 
Invisible World, as revealed by the Microscope. Second Edition. Plates. 
16mo. 6s. 

MANUAL OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY, Prepared for the Use of 

Officers and Travellers. By various Writers. Third Edition. 
Maps. Post 8vo. (Published by order of the Lords of the Admiralty.) 

MARKHAM’S (Mrs.) History of England. From the First Inva¬ 
sion by the Romans, down to the fourteenth year of Queen Victoria’s 
Reign. 98 th Edition. Woodcuts. 12mo. 6s. 

- History of France. From the Conquest by the Gauls, 

to the Death of Louis Philippe. 58th Edition. Woodcuts. 12mo. 6s. 

- History of Germany. From the Invasion by Marius, 

to the present time. 6th Edition. Woodcuts. 12mo. 6s. 

A School History of Greece. From the Earliest 
Times of the Roman Conquest. With the History of Literature and 
Art. By Dr. Wm. Smith. Sixteenth Thousand. Woodcuts. 12mo. 7s. 6 d. 
( Questions. 12mo. 2s.) 

- A School History of Rome, from the Earliest 

Times to the Establishment of the Empire. With the History of 
Literature and Art. By Dean Liddell. Eighth Thousand. Woodcuts. 
12mo. 7s. 6d. 

MARKLAND’S (J. H.) Remarks on English Churches, and Sepul¬ 
chral Memorials. Fourth Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 6s. 6d. 

■- Reverence due to Holy Places. Third Edition. 

Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 

MARRYAT’S (Joseph) History of Modern and Mediaeval Pottery 

and Porcelain. With a Description of the Manufacture, a Glossary, 
and a List of Monograms. Second Edition. Plates and Woodcuts. 
8vo. 30s. 

MATTHIAS’S (Augustus) Greek Grammar for Schools. Abridged 

from the Larger Grammar. By Blomfield. Ninth Edition. Revised by 
Edwards. 12mo. 3s. 

MAUREL’S (Jules) Essay on the Character, Actions, and Writings 

of the Duke of Wellington. Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo. Is. 6c?. 

MAWE’S (H. L.) Journal of a Passage from the Pacific to the 
Atlantic, crossing the Andes in the Northern Provinces of Peru, and 
descending the great River Maranon. 8vo. 12s. 

MAXIMS AND HINTS for an Angler, and the Miseries of 

Fishing. By Richard Penn. New Edition. Woodcuts. 12mo. Is. 

MAYO’S (Dr.) Pathology of the Human Mind. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 6d. 

MELVILLE’S (Hermann) Typee and Omoo; or, Adventures 
amongst the Marquesas and South Sea Islands. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 











24 


LIST OF WORKS 


MENDELSSOHN’S (Felix Bartholdy) Life. By J ules Benedict. 

8vo. 2s. 6 d. 

MEREDITH’S (Mrs. Charles) Notes and Sketches of New South 

Wales, during a Residence from 1839 to 1844. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 

--Tasmania, during a Residence of Nine Years. With 

Illustrations. 2Vols. Post8vo. 18s. 

MERRIFIELD (Mrs.) on the Arts of Painting in Oil, Miniature, 

Mosaic, and Glass; Gilding, Dyeing, and the Preparation of Colours 
and Artificial Gems, described in several old Manuscripts. 2 Vols. 8vo. 
30s. 

MILLS (Arthur) On Colonial Constitutions. An Outline of the 
History of British Dependencies. Map. 8vo. 14s. 

- India in 3858 : A Summary of the Existing 

Administration—Political, Fiscal, and Judicial; with Laws and Public 
Documents, from the earliest to the present time. Second Edition. With 
Coloured Revenue Map. 8vo. 10s. 6d. 

MITCHELL’S (Thomas) Plays of Aristophanes. With English 
Notes. 8vo.—l.CLOUDS, 10s—2. WASPS, 10s.—3. FROGS, 15s. 

MILMAN’S (Dean) History of Christianity, from the Birth of 
Christ to the Extinction of Paganism in the Roman Empire. 3 Yols. 
8vo. 36s. 

--History of Latin Christianity; including that of the 

Popes to the Pontificate of Nicholas V. Second Edition. 6 Yols. 8vo. 72s. 

—-Character and Conduct of the Apostles considered as 

an Evidence of Christianity. 8vo. 10s. 6d. 

- Life and Works of Horace. With 300 Woodcuts. 

New Edition. 2 Vols. Crown 8vo. 30s. 

- Poetical Works. Plates. 3 Yols. Fcap. 8vo. 18s. 

- Fall of Jerusalem. Fcap. 8vo. Is. 

- (Capt. E. A.) Wayside Cross; or, the Raid of Gomez. 

A Tale of the Carlist War. Post 8vo. 2 s.&d. 

MODERN DOMESTIC COOKERY. Founded on Principles of 

Economy and Practical Knowledge, and adapted for Private Families. 
New Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 

MOLTKE’S (Baron) Russian Campaigns on the Danube and the 
Passage of the Balkan, 1828—9. Plans. 8vo. 14s. 

MONASTERY AND THE MOUNTAIN CHURCH. By Author 

of “ Sunlight through the Mist.” Woodcuts. 16mo. 4s. 

MOORE’S (Thomas) Life and Letters of Lord Byron. Cabinet 

Edition. 6 Vols. Fcap. 8vo. 18s. 

- Life and Letters of Lord Byron. Popular Edition. 

With Portrait and Vignette. One Volume. Royal 8vo. 12s. 

MOZLEY’S (Rev. J. B.) Treatise on the Augustinian Doctrine of 

Predestination. 8vo. 14s. 

-Primitive Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. 8vo. 8 s.6d. 















PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY 


25 


MUCK MANUAL (The)for the Use of Farmers. A Practical Treatise 

on the Chemical Properties, Management, and Application of Manures. 
By Frederick Falkner. Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 

MUNDY’S (Gen.) Pen and Pencil Sketches in India. Cheap 

Edition. With 16 Plates. Post Svo. 7 s.6d. 

MUNRO’S (General Sir Thomas) Life and Letters. By the Rev. 

G. R.Gleig. Post8vo. 6s. 

MURCHISON’S (Sir Roderick) Russia in Europe and the Ural 
Mountains; Geologically Illustrated. With Coloured Maps, Plates, 
Sections, &c. 2 Vols. Royal 4to. 81.8s. 

- Siluria ; or, a History of the Oldest Rocks con¬ 

taining Organic Remains. Second Edition. Map and Plates. 8vo. 

MURRAY’S (Capt. A.) Naval Life and Services of Admiral Sir 

Philip Durham. 8vo. 5s. 6d. 

MURRAY’S RAILWAY READING. For all classes of Readers. 


[ The following are. published .•] 


Wellington. By Lorb Ellesmere. Get.' 
Nimrod on the Chase, 1*. 

Essays from “The Times.” 2 Vols. 8s. 
Music and Dress. Is. 

La yard’s Account of Nineveh, as. 
Milman’s Pali, op Jerusalem. Is. 
Mahon’s “Forty-Five.” 3s. 

Life of Theodore Hook. Is. 

Deeds of Naval Daring. 2 Vols. as. 
The Honey Bee. Is. 

James’^Esof’s Fables. 2s. 6 it . 

Nimrod on the Turf. Is. 6 d . 
Oliphant’s Nepaul. 2s. 6d. 

Art of Dining. Is. 6 d. 

Hallam’s Literary Essays. 2s. 


Mahon’s Joan of Arc. Is. 

Head’s Emigrant. 2s. 6d. 

Nimrod on the Road. Is. 

Wilkinson's Ancient Egyptians. 12s. 
Croker on the Guillotine. Is. 
Hollway’s Norway. 2s. 

Maurkl’s Wellington. Is. 6rf. 
Campbell’s Life of Bacon. 2s. 

The Flower Garden. Is. 

Lockhart’s Spanish Ballads. 2s. 6 d . 
Lucas on History. Gel. 

Beauties of Byron. 3s. 

Taylor’s Notes from Life. 2s. 
Rejected Addresses. Is. 

Penn’s Hints on Angling. Is. 


MUSIC AND DRESS. Two Essays, by a Lady. Reprinted from 

the “ Quarterly Review.” Fcap. Svo. Is. 

NAPIER’S (Sir Wm.) English Battles and Sieges of the Peninsular 

War. Third Edition. Portrait. Post 8vo. 10s. Gd. 

Life and Opinions of General Sir Charles Napier; 
chiefly derived from his Journals, Letters, and Familiar Correspon¬ 
dence. Second Edition. Portraits. 4 Vols. Post 8vo. 48s. 


NAUTICAL ALMANACK (The). Royal Svo. 2s. Qd. {.Published 

by Authority.) 

NAYY LIST (The Quarterly). (Published by Authority.) 

Post 8vo. 2s. Qd. 

NEWBOLD’S (Lieut.) Straits of Malacca, Tenang, and Singapore. 
2 Vols*. Svo. 26s. 

NEWDEGATE’S (C. N.) Customs’ Tariffs of all Nations; collected 

and arranged up to the year 1855. 4to. 30s. 

NICHOLLS’ (Sir George) History of the British Poor : Being 

an Historical Account of the English, Scotch, and Irish Poor Law : in 
connection with the Condition of the People. 4 Vols. Svo. 

The wo'fk may be had separately :—• 

History of the English Poor. 2 Vols. Svo. 28s. 

-the Irish Poor. 8vo. 14s. 

-the Scotch Poor. Svo. 12s. 












26 


LIST OF WORKS 


NICOLAS’ (Sir Harris) Historic Peerage of England. Exhi¬ 
biting, under Alphabetical Arrangement, the Origin, Descent, and 
Present State of every Title of Peerage which has existed in this 
Country since the Conquest. Being a New Edition of the “ Synopsis of 
the Peerage.” Revised, Corrected, and Continued to the Present Time. 
By William Courthope, Somerset Herald. 8vo. 305. 

NIMROD On the Chace—The Turf—and The Road. Reprinted 

from the “ Quarterly Review.” Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 3 s.6d. 

O’CONNOR’S (R.) Field Sports of France ; or, Hunting, Shooting, 

and Fishing on the Continent. Woodcuts. 12mo. 7s. 6d. 

OLIPHANT’S (Laurence) Journey to Katmandu, with Yisit to 
the Camp of the Nepaulese Ambassador. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. 

OWEN’S (Professor) Manual of Fossil Mammals. Including the 
substance of the course of Lectures on Osteology and Palaeontology of 
the class Mammalia, delivered at the Metropolitan School of Science, 
Jermyn Street. Illustrations. 8vo. In the Press. 

OXENHAM’S (Rev. W.) English Notes for Latin Elegiacs ; designed 

for early Proficients in the Art of Latin Versification, with Prefatory 
Rules of Composition in Elegiac Metre. Third Edition. 12mo. 4s. 

PAGET’S (John) Hungary and Transylvania. With Remarks on 

their Condition, Social, Political, and Economical. Third Edition. 
Woodcuts. 2 Vols. 8vo. 18s. 

PARIS’ (John A., M.D.) Philosophy in Sport made Science in 

Earnest'; or, the First Principles of Natural Philosophy inculcated by aid 
of the Toys and Sports of Youth. Eighth Edition. Woodcuts. 
Post 8vo. 9s. 

PARISH’S (Sir Woodbine) Buenos Ayres and the Provinces of the 

Rio de la Plata. Their First Discovery and Conquest, Present State, 
Trade, Debt, &c. Second Edition. Map and Woodcuts. 8vo. 15s. 

PARKYNS’ (Mansfield) Personal Narrative of Three Years’ Resi¬ 
dence and Adventures in Abyssinia. Woodcuts. 2 Vols. 8vo. 30s. 

PEEL’S (Sir Robt.) MEMOIRS. Left in MSS. Edited by 

Earl Stanhope and the Right Hon. Edward Cardwell. 2 Vols. 
Post 8vo. 7s. 6d. each. 

PEILE’S (Rev. Dr.) Agamemnon and Choeplioroe of iEschylus. 

A New Edition of the Text, with Notes. Second Edition. 2 Vols. 
8vo. 9s. each. 

PENN’S (Richard) Maxims and Hints for an Angler, and the 
Miseries of Fishing. To which is added, Maxims and Hints for a 
Chess-player. New Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. Is. 

PENROSE’S (Rev. John) Faith and Practice ; an Exposition of the 

Principles and Duties of Natural and Revealed Religion. Post 8vo. 8s. Qd. 

(F. C.) Principles of Athenian Architecture, and the 
Optical Refinements exhibited in the Construction of the Ancient 
Buildings at Athens, from a Survey. With 40 Plates. Folio. 51. 5s. 
(Published under the direction of the Dilettanti Society.) 

PERRY’S (Sir Erskine) Bird’s-Eye View of India. With Extracts 

from a Journal kept in the Provinces, Nepaul, &c. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 






PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY 


27 


PHILLIPS’ (John) Memoirs of William Smith, LL.D. (the Geo¬ 
logist). Portrait. 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

— Geology of Yorkshire, The Yorkshire Coast, and the 

Mountain-Limestone District. Plates 4to. Parti., 20s.—Part II., 30s. 

Rivers, Mountains, and Sea Coast of Yorkshire. 
With Essays on the Climate, Scenery, and Ancient Inhabitants of the 
Country. Second Edition , with 36 Plates. 8vo. 15s. 

PIIILPOTT’S (Bishop) Letters to the late Charles Butler, on the 

Theological parts of his “ Book of the Roman Catholic Church; ” with 
Remarks on certain Works of Dr. Milner and Dr. Lingard, and on some 
parts of the Evidence of Dr. Doyle. Second Edition. 8vo. 16s. 

PHIPPS’ (Hon. Edmund) Memoir, Correspondence, Literary and 
Unpublished Diax-ies of Robert Plumer Ward. Portrait. 2Vols. 8vo. 28s. 

POPE’S (Alexander) WORKS. An entirely New Edition. Edited 

by the Right Hon. John Wilson Croker, assisted by Peter Cunning¬ 
ham, F.S.A. 8vo. In the Press. 

PORTER’S (Rev. J. L.) Five Years in Damascus. With Travels to 

Palmyra, Lebanon, and other Scripture Sites. Map and Woodcuts. 
2 vols. Post 8vo. 21s. 

(Mrs.*G. R.) Rational Arithmetic for Schools and for 

Private Instruction. 12mo. 3s. 6d. 

PRAYER-BOOK (The Illustrated), with 1000 Illustrations of Bor¬ 
ders, Initials, Vignettes, &c. Medium 8vo. Cloth, 21s.; Calf, 31s. 6d.; 
Morocco, 42s. 

PRECEPTS FOR THE CONDUCT OF LIFE. Exhortations to 

a Virtuous Course and Dissuasions from a Vicious Career. Extracted 
from the Scriptures. Fcap. 8vo. Is. 

PRINSEP’S (Jas.) Essays on Indian Antiquities, Historic, 

Numismatic, and Palteographic, with Tables, illustrative of Indian 
History, Chronology, Modern Coinages, Weights, Measures, &c. 
Edited by Edward Thomas. Illustrations. 2 Vols. Svo. 

PROGRESS OF RUSSIA IN THE EAST, An Historical Sum¬ 
mary, continued to the Present Time. With Map by Arrowsmith. 
Third Edition. Svo. 6s. 6d. 

PUSS IN BOOTS. With 12 Illustrations; for Old and Young. 

By Otto Speckter. A New Edition. 16mo. Is. 6d. 

QUARTERLY REVIEW (The). 8vo. 6s. 

RANKE’S (Leopold) Political and Ecclesiastical History of the 

Popes of Rome, during the Sixteentli and Seventeenth Centuries. Trans¬ 
lated from the German by Mrs. Austin. Third Edition. 2 Vols. 8vo. 24s. 

RAWLINSON’S (Rev. George) Herodotus. A New English 

Version. Edited with Notes, illustrating the History and Geography 
of Herodotus, from the most recent sources of information, embody¬ 
ing the chief Results, Historical and Ethnographical, which have 
been arrived at in the progress of Cuneiform and Hieroglyphical Dis¬ 
covery. Assisted by Colonel Rawlinson and Sir J. G. Wilkinson. 
Maps and Woodcuts. 4 Vols. 8vo. 18s. each. 

REJECTED ADDRESSES (The). By James and Horace Smith. 

With Biographies of the Authors, and additional Notes. New Edition, 
with the Author's latest Corrections. Fcap. Svo. Is., or Fine Paper, with 
Portrait. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 









28 


LIST OF WORKS 


RENNIE’S (James) Insect Architecture. To which are added 

Chapters on the Ravages, the Preservation, for Purposes of Study, and 
the Classification of Insects. New Edition. Woodcuts. Post Svo. 5s. 

RICARDO’S (David) Political Works. With a Notice of his 

Life and Writings. By J. R. M'Culloch. New Edition. Svo. 16s. 
RIPA’S (Father) Memoirs during Thirteen Years’ Residence at the 

Court of Peking, in the Service of the Emperor of China. Translated 
from the Italian. By Fortunato Prandi. Post Svo. 2s. Qd. 

ROBERTSON’S (Rev. J. C.) History of the Christian Church, From 
the Apostolic Age to the Pontificate of Gregory the Great, a.d. 590. 
Stcond and Revised Edition. Svo. 

- Second Period, from a.d. 590 to the Concordat of 

Worms, a.d. 1123. Svo. ISs. 

ROBINSON’S (Rev. Dr.) Biblical Researches in the Holy Land. 

Being a Journal of Travels in 1838, and of Later Researches in 1852. 
With New Maps. 3 Yols. Svo. 36s. 

*** The “ Later Researches" may be liad separately. Svo. 15s. 

ROMILLY’S (Sir Samuel) Memoirs and Political Diary. By his 
Sons. Third Edition. Portrait. 2 Yols. Fcap. 8vo. 12s. 

ROSS’S (Sir James) Yoyage of Discovery and Research in the 
Southern and Antarctic Regions during the years 1839-43. Plates. 
2 Vols. 8vo. 36s. 

RUNDELL’S (Mrs.) Domestic Cooker} r , founded on Principles 

of Economy and Practice, and adapted for Private Families. New and 
Revised Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. Svo. 5s. 

RUSSIA ; A Memoir of the Remarkable Events which attended 

the Accession of the Emperor Nicholas. By Baron M. KohFF, Secretary 
of State. Svo. 10s. 6d. {Published by Imperial Command.) 

RUXTON’S (George F.) Travels in Mexico ; with Adventures 
among the Wild Tribes and Animals of the Prairies and Rocky Moun¬ 
tains. Post Svo. 6s. 

SALE’S (Lady) Journal of the Disasters in Afghanistan. Eighth 

Edition. Post Svo. 12s. 

- (Sir Robert) Brigade in Afghanistan. With an Account of 

the Seizure and Defence of Jellalabad. ByREV.G.R.GLEio. Post8vo.2s.6d. 

SANDWITH’S (Humphry) Narrative of the Siege of Kars 
and of the Six Months’ Resistance by the Turkish Garrison under 
General Williams. Seventh Thousand. Post Svo. 3s. 6d. 

SCOTT’S (G. Gilbert) Remarks on Secular and Domestic 

Architecture, Present and Future. Svo. 9s. 

SCROPE’S (William) Days of Deer-Stalking in the Forest of Atholl; 

with some Account of the Nature and Habits of the Red Deer. Third 
Edition. Woodcuts. Crown Svo. 20s. 

Days and Nights of Salmon Fishing in the Tweed ; 
with a short Account of the Natural History and Habits of the Salmon. 
Second Edition. Woodcuts. Royal Svo. 31s. Gd. 

— (G. P.) Memoir of Lord Sydenham, and his Administra¬ 

tion in Canada. Second Edition. Portrait. Svo. 9s. 6 d. 

- Geology and Extinct Volcanos of Central France. 

Second Edition, revised and enlarged. Illustrations. Medium Svo. 30s. 






PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY 


29 


SHAW’S (Thos. B.) Outlines of English Literature, for the Use of 

Young Students. Post 8vo. 12s. 

SIERRA LEONE ; Described in a Series of Letters to Friends at 

Home. By A Lady. Edited by Mrs. Norton. Post 8vo. 6s. 

SMITH’S (Wm., LL.D.) Dictionary, of Greek and Roman Anti¬ 

quities. Second Edition. With 500 Woodcuts. 8vo. 42s. 

- Smaller Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. 

Abridged from the above work. Fourth Edition. With 200 Woodcuts. 
Crown 8vo. 7s. 6c?. 

-Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and My¬ 

thology. With 500 Woodcuts. 3 Vols. 8vo. 51. 15s. 6d. 

- Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography. With 

Woodcuts. 2 Vols. 8vo. 80s. 

-Classical Dictionary for the Higher Forms in Schools. 

Compiled from the larger works. Fourth Edition. With 750 Woodcuts. 
8vo. 18s. 

Smaller Classical Dictionary. Abridged from the 

above work. Fourth Edition. With 200 Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6 d. 

Dictionary of Biblical Antiquities, Biography, and Geo¬ 
graphy. With Woodcuts. 8vo. [In Preparation. 

Latin - English Dictionary. Based upon the Works 

of Forcellini and Freund. Fifth Thousand. 8vo. 21s. 

Smaller Latin-English Dictionary. Abridged from the 

above work. Tenth Thousand. Square 12mo. 7s. 6 d. 

- History of Greece; from the Earliest Times to 

the Itoman Conquest. With the History of Literature and Art. Sixteenth 
Thousand. Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6 d. (Questions on the same. 
12mo. 2f.) 

- History of Rome; from the Earliest Times to the 

Establishment of the Empire. With the History of Literature and 
Art. By H. G. Liddell, D.D. Eighth Thousand. Woodcuts. Crown 
8vo. 7s. 6 d. [Uniform with Smith’s “ History of Greece.”]. 

- Gibbon’s History of the Decline and Fall of the 

Roman Empire. Edited, with Notes. Portrait and Map. 8 Vols. 8vo. 
60s. (Murray’s British Classics.) 

-Student’s Gibbon; being the History of the Decline 

and Fall, Abridged. Incorporating the Researches of Recent Com¬ 
mentators. Sixth Thousand. Woodcuts. Post8vo. 7 s.6d. 

- Student’s Hume. A History of England based on 

Hume’s work, continued to the present time. With woodcuts. Post 
8vo. (On the Plan of the Student's Gibbon.) 

-Mediaeval Latin-English Dictionary. Selected from the 

great work of Ducange. 8vo. [ Uniform with Dr. Smith's “ Latin 
Dictionary.”] 

-(Wm. Jas.) Grenville Letters and Diaries, including 

Mr. Grenville’s Diary of Political Events, while First Lord of 
the Treasury. Edited, with Notes. 4 Vols. 8vo. 64s. 

_(James & Horace) Rejected Addresses. Twenty-third 

Edition. Fcap. 8vo. Is., or Fine Paper, with Portrait. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 



















30 


LIST OF WORKS 


SOMERVILLE’S (Mary) Physical Geography. Fourth, and 
thoroughly revised Edition. Portrait. Post 8vo. 9s. 

_. Connexion of the Physical Sciences. Ninth, 

and revised Edition. Plates. Post 8vo. 9s. 

SOUTH’S (John F.) Household Surgery; or. Hints on Emergen¬ 
cies. New Edition. Woodcuts. Fcp. 8vo. 

SOUTHEY’S (Robert) Book of the Church ; with Notes contain¬ 
ing the Authorities, and an Index. Sixth Edition. 8vo. 12s. 

-—-— --Lives ofJohnBunyan&Oliver Cromwell. Post8vo.2*.6<f. 

SPECKTER’S (Otto) Puss in Boots, suited to the Tastes of Old 

and Young. A Neiv Edition. With 12 Woodcuts. Square 12mo. Is. 6 d. 

- Charmed Roe; or, the Story of the Little Brother 

and Sister. Illustrated. 16mo. 

STANLEY’S (Edward, D.D., Bp. of Norwich) Addresses and 
Charges. With a Memoir of his Life. By IIis Son. Second Edition. 
8vo. 10s. 6J. 

- (Arthur P.) Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles to 

the Corinthians, with Notes j and Dissertations. Second, and revised 
Edition. 8vo. 18s. 

Historical Memorials of Canterbury. The Landing of 
Augustine—The Murder of Becket—The Black Prince—The Shrine of 
Becket. Third Edition. Woodcuts. PostSvo. 7s. 

- Sinai and Palestine, in Connexion with their History. 

Fifth Edition. Map. 8vo. 16s. 

ST. JOHN’S (Charles) Wild Sports and Natural History of the 

Highlands. Post 8vo. 6s. 

- (Bayle) Adventures in the Libyan Desert and the 

Oasis of Jupiter Ammon. Woodcuts. PostSvo. 2 s.6d. 

STEPHENSON’S (George) Life. The Railway Engineer. By 

Samuel Smiles. Fifth Edition. Portrait. 8vo. 16s. 

STOTHARD’S (Tiios., R. A.) Life. With Personal Reminiscences. 

By Mrs. Bray. With Portrait and 60 Woodcuts. 4to. 

STREET’S (G. E.) Brick and Marble Architecture of Italy, in the 

Middle Ages. Plates. 8vo. 21s. 

STRIFE FOR THE MASTERY. Two Allegories. With Illus¬ 

trations. Crown 8vo. 6s. 

SWIFT’S (Jonathan) Life, Letters and Journals. By John 

Forster. 8vo. In Preparation. 

-- Works. New Edition, based upon Sir Walter Scott’s 

Edition, entirely revised. 8vo. In Preparation. 

SYDENHAM’S (Lord) Memoirs. With his Administration in 
Canada. By G.PouletScrope, M.P. Second Edition. Portrait. 8vo. 9s. 6d. 

SYME’S (Jas.) Principles of Surgery. Fourth Edition, revised. 

8vo. 14s. 

TAYLOR’S (Henry) Notes from Life. Fcap 8vo. 2 s. 

-(J. E.) Fairy Ring. A Collection of Stories for Young 

Persons. From the German. With Illustrations by Richard Doyle. 
Second Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. 8vo. 













PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 


31 


TENNENT’S (Sir J. E.) Christianity in Ceylon. Its Introduction 

and Progress under the Portuguese, Dutch, British, and American Mis¬ 
sions. With an Historical Sketch of the Brahmanical and Buddhist 
Superstitions. Woodcuts. 8vo. 14s. 

THREE-LEAVED MANUAL OP FAMILY PRAYER; arranged 

so as to save the trouble of turning the Pages backwards and forwards. 
Royal 8vo. 2s. 

TICKNOR’S (George) History of Spanish Literature. With Criti¬ 
cisms on particular Works, and Biographical Notices of Prominent 
Writers. Second Edition. 3 Vols. 8vo. 24s. 

TOCQUEVILLE’S (M. be) State of France before the Revolution, 
1789, and on the Causes of that Event. Translated by Henry Reeve, 
Esq. 8vo. 14s. 

TREMENHEERE’S (IP. S.) Political Experience of the Ancients, 

in its bearing on Modern Times. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. 

’ -— - Notes on Public Subjects, made during a 

Tour in the United States and Canada. Post 8vo. 10s. 6d. 

- Constitution of the United States compared 

with our own. Post 8vo. 9s. 6 d. 

TWISS’ (Horace) Public and Private Life of Lord Chancellor Eldon, 
with Selections from his Correspondence. Portrait. Third Edition. 
2 Vols. Post8vo. 21s. 

TYTLER (Patrick Fraser), A Memoir of. By his Friend, Rev. 
J. W. Bcrgon, M.A. 8vo. In the Press. 

UBICINFS (M. A.) Letters on Turkey and its Inhabitants—the 
Moslems, Greeks, Armenians, &c. Translated by Lady Easthope. 
2 Vols. Post 8vo. 21s. 

VAUGHAN’S (Rev. Dr.) Sermons preached in Harrow School. 
8vo. 10s. 6J. 

New Sermons. 12mo. 5s. 

VAUX’S (W. S. W.) Handbook to the Antiquities in the British 

Museum; being a Description of the Remains of Greek, Assyrian, 
Egyptian, and Etruscan Art preserved there. With Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 

VENABLES’ (Rev. R. L.) Domestic Scenes in Russia during a 
Year’s Residence, chiefly in the Interior. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 5s. 

VOYAGE to the Mauritius and back, touching at the Cape of Good 

Hope, and St. Helena. By Author of “ Paddiana.” Post 8vo. 9s. 6 d. 

WAAGEN’S (Dr.) Treasures of Art in Great Britain. Being an 
Account of the Chief Collections of Paintings, Sculpture, Manuscripts, 
Miniatures, &c. &c., in this Country. Obtained from Personal Inspec¬ 
tion during Visits to England. 3 Vols. 8vo. 36s. 

-Galleries and Cabinets of Art in England. Being 

an Account of more than Forty Collections, visited in 1854-56 and 
never before described. With Index. 8vo. 18s. 

W ADDINGTON’S (Dean) Condition and Prospects of the 

Greek Church. New Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 3s. Qd. 

WAKEFIELD’S (E. J.) Adventures in New Zealand. With 

some Account of the Beginning of the British Colonisation of the 
Island. Map. 2 Vols. 8vo. 28s. 

WALKS AND TALKS. A Story-book for Young Children. By 

Aunt Ida. With Woodcuts. 16mo. 5s. 








32 LIST OF WORKS PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 


WARD’S (Robert Plumer) Memoir, Correspondence, Literary and 
Unpublished Diaries and Remains. By the Hon. Edmund Phipps. 
Portrait. 2 Vols. 8vo. 28s. 

WATT (James) ; Origin and Progress of his Mechanical Inventions. 

Illustrated by bis Correspondence with his Friends. Edited with an 
Introductory Memoir, by J. P. Muirhead. Plates. 3 vols. 8vo. 45s., 
or Large Paper. 3 Vols. 4to. 

WELLINGTON’S (The Duke of) Despatches during his various 

Campaigns. Compiled from Official and other Authentic Documents. By 
Col. Gurwood, C.B. New Enlarged Edition. 8 Vols. 8vo. 21s. each. 

-Supplementary Letters, Despatches, and other 

Papers. Edited by his Son. 3 Vols. 8vo. 

-- Selections from his Despatches and General 

Orders. By Colonel Gurwood. 8vo. 18s. 

-Speeches in Parliament. 2 Yols. 8vo. 42s. 

WILKIE’S (Sir David) Life, Journals, Tours, and Critical Remarks 
on Works of Art, with a Selection from his Correspondence. By Allan 
Cunningham. Portrait. 3 Vols. 8vo. 42s. 

WILKINSON’S (Sir J. G.) Popular Account of the Private Life, 

Manners, and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. New Edition. 
Revised and Condensed. With 500 Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 
12s. 

Dalmatia and Montenegro; with a Journey to 
Mostar in Hertzegovina, and Remarks on the Slavonic Nations. Plates 
and Woodcuts. 2Vols.8vo. 42s. 

- Handbook for Egypt.—Thebes, the Nile, Alex¬ 

andria, Cairo, the Pyramids, Mount Sinai, &c. Map. Post 8vo. 

•- (G. B.) Working Man’s Handbook to South Aus¬ 

tralia; with Advice to the Farmer, and Detailed Information for the 
several Classes of Labourers and Artisans. Map. 18mo. Is. 6d. 

WOOD’S (Lieut.) Yoyage up the Indus to the Source of the 

River Oxus, by Kabul and Badakhshan. Map. 8vo. 14s. 

WORDSWORTH’S (Rev. Dr.) Athens and Attica. Journal of a 

Tour. Third Edition. Plates. Post 8vo. 8s. 6d. 

- Greece: Pictorial, Descriptive, and Historical, 

with a History of the Characteristics of Greek Art, by G. Sciiakf, F.S.A. 

, New Edition. With 600 Woodcuts. Royal 8vo. 

- King Edward YIth’s Latin Grammar, for the 

Use of Schools. Y2th Edition, revised. 12mo. 3 s.6d. 

First Latin Book, or the Accidence, Syntax 
and Prosody, with English Translation for Junior Classes. Second 
Edition. 12mo. 2s. 

WORNUM (Ralph). A Biographical Dictionary of Italian Painters : 

with a Table of the Contemporary Schools of Italy. By a Lady. 
Post 8vo. 6s. 6c l. 

YOUNG’S (Dr. Thos.) Life and Miscellaneous Works, edited 
by Dean Peacock and John Leitch. Portrait and Plates. 4 Vols. 
8vo. 15s. each. 


BK1BBUKI AND EVAN 8, PRINTERS, WHITEPRIAK8. 




I m 


4 









































































































